THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


BY 

JOHN  A.  SCOTT 

PROFESSOR  OF  CREEK  IN    NORTHWESTERN    UNIVERSITY 

SATHER   PROFESSOR  OF  CLASSICAL  LITERATURE  IN  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  1921 


SATHER  CLASSICAL  LECTURES 

VOLUME  ONE 


- 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRESS 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1921 


\3j 

I 

Lh 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.  Homer  among  the  Ancient  Greeks  . _.      1 

II.  The  Arguments  of  Wolf 39 

III.  The  Linguistic  Arguments _ 73 

IV.  The  Antiquities  and  Kindred  Matters - 106 

V.  The  Contradictions  . 137 

VI.     The  Individualization  of  Gods  and  Heroes 172 

VII.     Hector  .: _ „ _ 205 

VIII.     The  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey „ 240 


Y    . 


CHAPTER  I 
HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT   GREEKS 

The  great  fact  of  ancient  Greece  is  the  poetry 
of  Homer,  which  was  the  center  of  education,  the 
source  of  mythology,  the  model  of  literature,  the 
inspiration  of  artists;  known  and  quoted  by  all. 
Homer  was  a  poet  of  such  authority,  even  in 
matters  not  poetic,  that  contending  states  were 
supposed  to  have  settled  their  claims  to  territory 
on  the  interpretation  of  his  verses.  Passing  west- 
ward the  power  of  Homeric  verse  transformed 
the  Latin  tongue,  making  the  Romans  abandon 
their  own  poetic  forms  and  forcing  that  language, 
with  its  long  case  endings,  to  march  in  dactylic 
rhythms.  The  oldest  Latin  literature  of  which 
any  fragments  have  been  preserved  is  a  version 
of  the  Odyssey,  and  the  greatest  poetic  production 
of  Roman  Italy  is  the  Aeneid  of  Vergil,  a  literary 
amalgamation  and  adaptation  of  both  the  Iliad 
and  the  Odyssey.  Homer  was  thus  in  turn  to  in- 
spire the  genius  of  Dante ;  and  the  introduction  of 
Milton's  Paradise  Lost,  "Sing,  heavenly  Muse," 
shows  the  kinship  of  that  poem  also  with  Homeric 
poetry. 

Nothing  could  better  illustrate  the  preeminence 
of  Homer  than  the  fact  that  among  the  papyrus 


2  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

fragments  discovered  in  Egypt  four  hundred  and 
seventy  are  from  the  works  of  writers  previously 
known,  of  which  two  hundred  and  seventy,  far 
more  than  half,  are  from  Homer.  Demosthenes 
comes  second  with  but  thirty,  and  Plato,  with  only 
twenty,  comes  third.1 

This  popularity  of  Homer  in  Egypt  is  in  keep- 
ing with  the  best  opinion  of  classical  Greece,  for 
Plato,  who  reached  manhood  during  the  life  of 
Sophocles  and  of  Euripides,  regarded  Homer  as 
the  greatest  of  all  the  tragic  poets;  and  oddly 
enough  the  genuine  works  of  Plato  contain  hardly 
a  verse  from  those  mighty  dramatists,  although 
they  are  the  most  quotable  of  poets,  while  Homer 
is  quoted  more  than  one  hundred  times,  many 
of  these  quotations  containing  several  verses.2 
To  the  mind  of  the  ancient  world  Homer  stood 
quite  alone,  so  that  that  great  judge  of  literature, 
the  Latin  Quintilian,  could  say  that  Homer  was 
to  be  approached  by  none  and  that  it  was  a  mark 
of  ability  to  be  able  to  appreciate  him  (x,  1,  50). 
Horace,  whose  own  poetry  is  sufficient  guaranty 
of  his  literary  acumen,  refers  to  Homer  as  the 
poet  of  perfect  taste,  qui  nil  molitur  inepte  (Ars 
Poetica  140). 

This  first  and  greatest  of  poets  lives  only  in 
his  poetry.  In  that  poetry  he  tells  us  absolutely 
nothing  about  himself,  his  name,  his  home,  his 

i  Kenyon,  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies,  1919,  1  ff. 

2  Howes,  ' '  Homeric  Quotations  in  Plato  and  Aristotle, ' '  Har- 
vard Studies,  VI,  155.  Aeschylus  is  quoted  in  Rep.  n,  362  A; 
Euripides,  in  the  spurious  Alcibiades  n,  151  B. 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS   8 

age,  or  his  ancestors;  and  we  can  only  surmise 
his  religious  and  political  ideas  as  we  read  these 
ideas  into  the  actions  or  descriptions  of  the  poems. 

Homer  was  such  a  master  of  dramatic  narra- 
tive that  each  character  represents  only  himself. 
When  once  Nestor,  Achilles,  Helen,  Hector,  or 
Agamemnon  has  been  brought  into  action,  each 
seems  to  live  his  own  life,  free  to  act  or  to  speak 
as  he  pleases,  entirely  detached  from  the  mind 
which  created  him. 

The  poet  seems  never  to  have  made  an  allusion 
to  contemporary  events,  so  that  it  is  impossible 
to  assign  him  to  a  definite  age ;  and  his  references 
to  rivers,  mountains,  lands,  and  seas  are  so  im- 
personal, so  involved  in  the  story  he  is  telling, 
that  it  is  as  difficult  to  name  his  home  as  it  is  to 
define  his  time. 

Not  only  does  he  name  no  contemporary 
person  or  event,  but  he,  too,  is  unnamed  in  any 
contemporary  source,  so  that  practically  every 
statement  made  regarding  him  is  due  to  the 
creative  imagination  of  those  who  had  little  or 
nothing  on  which  to  build  except  inferences  drawn 
from  the  poems  themselves.  It  is  a  significant 
fact  that  different  traditions  in  regard  to  Homer, 
his  life  and  his  work,  become  fuller  and  more 
definite  as  they  get  farther  away  from  any  pos- 
sible sources  of  knowledge.  My  own  belief  is  that 
Homer  was  born  in  Smyrna,  that  he  traveled  much, 
that  the  island  of  Chios  was  closely  connected 
with  his  life,  also  that  he  lived  at  approximately 


4  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

900  b.c,  or  about  one  hundred  years  after  David 
composed  his  Songs,  and  Solomon  his  Proverbs, 
The  greatest  period  of  Hebrew  literature  there- 
fore would  roughly  correspond  with  the  age  of 
Homer. 

The  name  of  Smyrna  is  not  mentioned  by 
Homer,  but  the  indications  that  this  was  his 
native  city  are  as  follows :  The  language  in  which 
these  poems  were  composed  is  the  Early  Ionic 
with  very  marked  survivals  of  Aeolic  forms,  a 
species  of  literary  language  which  could  hardly 
have  responded  to  the  thrill  of  creative  genius 
except  on  the  western  shores  of  Asia  Minor.  The 
poet  refers  (B  535)  to  the  men  of  Locris  as  living 
on  the  other  side  of  Euboea,  and  since  Locris  is 
west  of  Euboea  this  must  be  viewed  from  the  east. 
He  speaks  (B  145)  of  the  waves  being  raised  by 
the  southwest  winds  or  dashed  by  these  same 
winds  (B  395)  against  a  jutting  promontory,  or 
of  fogs  forced  landward  by  winds  from  the  west 
(A  422),  or  of  clouds  driven  on  by  Zephyrus 
moving  over  the  deep  (A  275),  and  of  the  mass 
of  seaweeds  washed  ashore  by  gales  from  the 
north  and  west  as  these  gales  swept  down  from 
Thrace  (15).  In  Homer  the  west  wind,  Zephyrus, 
is  regularly  a  rough  and  disagreeable  wind,  while 
to  most  Greek  and  Latin  writers  it  is  the  gentle 
and  kindly  breeze.  Wood  made  the  observation 
that  only  in  the  regions  adjacent  to  Smyrna  and 
along  the  Aegean  coast  of  Asia  Minor  is  the  south- 
west wind  a  disagreeable  one;  while  on  the  other 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS   5 

shores  of  the  Mediterranean  it  is  especially  the 
balmy  Zephyrus.3  Vergirs  Latin  feeling  for  this 
breeze  did  not  permit  him  to  follow  Homer  in 
making  Zephyrus  a  rough  and  disagreeable  wind. 
All  these  references  imply  a  knowledge  of  the 
eastern  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  the 
mention  of  the  star  of  autumn  (E  5)  rising  fresh 
from  its  bath  in  the  ocean,  and  like  references  to 
the  sun  (H  422,  T  1)  would  imply  a  view  of  the 
star  or  the  sunrise  such  as  the  islands  of  the 
Aegean  might  supply. 

The  verses  which  furnish  the  most  definite 
indication  of  the  poet's  nativity  are  those  in  which 
he  describes  the  movements  of  the  assembling 
hosts  and  the  noises  they  make  (B  459) :  "  Just 
as  the  many  flocks  of  winged  birds,  cranes,  or 
geese,  or  long-necked  swans  in  a  meadow  of  Asia, 
about  the  streams  of  the  Cayster,  fly  here  and 
there  sporting  on  their  pinions  and  alighting  with 
loud  cries,  while  the  meadow  reechoes.' '  This 
description  of  the  lighting  of  birds  seems  based 
on  the  impression  this  sight  must  have  made  on 
the  youthful  mind  of  the  poet,  and  we  may  safely 
assume  that  Homer  had  watched  with  bovish 
delight  these  flocks  of  geese,  cranes,  and  swans 
as  they  settled  in  the  valley  of  the  Cayster.  The 
Cayster  was  but  a  few  miles  from  Smyrna,  near 
enough  to  be  known  to  a  boy  of  that  city,  but 
still  not  too  near  to  dull  the  impressions  by  the 
familiarity  of  frequent  observance. 

3  Essay  on  the  Original  Genius  and  Writings  of  Homer,  London, 
1769. 


6  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Every  person  who  is  familiar  with  the  life  of 
the  ancient  Greeks  knows  what  a  high  value  they 
put  upon  fish  as  food,  so  high  indeed  that  the  word 
for  dainty  is  also  the  word  for  the  meat  of  fish, 
osjrov.  The  gourmand  and  the  spendthrift  were 
persons  who  wasted  their  substance  in  buying 
fish  of  fine  quality;  yet  in  Homer  the  heroes 
spurned  fish  and  the  two  passages  which  describe 
the  eating  of  that  food  add  the  pardoning  phrase, 
"for  they  were  on  the  verge  of  starvation. ' ' 
(S  369,  m  332.)  The  reason  for  this  aversion  to 
fish  in  Homer  is  very  simple,  and  is  as  follows: 
Sir  William  Kamsay  in  his  book,  Impressions  of 
Turkey,  gives  a  closing  chapter  which  he  calls 
"Tips  to  Archaeologists, ' '  in  which  he  describes 
upland  trips  from  Smyrna.  Sir  William  lays 
stress  on  the  necessity  of  procuring  proper  food, 
especially  meat,  for  such  trips,  and  urges  the 
traveler  to  rely  on  sardines  to  be  taken  along,  or 
on  kids  and  lambs  to  be  obtained  of  the  natives, 
but  to  avoid  fish.    His  words  in  regard  to  fish  are : 

Fish  are  rarely  found  and  when  found  are  usually 
bad;  the  natives  have  a  prejudice  against  fish,  and  my 
own  experience  has  been  unfavorable.  Fish  of  consider- 
able size  swarm  in  the  Tembris,  but  are  flabby  and  taste 
like  mud:  two  hungry  archaeologists,  after  a  mouthful 
or  two  of  such  a  fish,  could  eat  no  more.  In  the  clear, 
sparkling  mountain  stream  that  flows  through  the  Taurus 
a  small  fish  is  caught;  I  had  a  most  violent  attack  of 
sickness  after  eating  some*of  them,  and  so  had  all  who 
partook. 

An  educated  native  of  Smyrna  has  assured  me 
that  fish  from  nearby  streams  are  regarded  by 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS   7 

the  natives  with  great  disfavor  and  that  this  food 
is  eaten  only  by  the  very  poor.  Evidently  it  wa 
no  accident  that  made  Homer  describe  his  hero. 
as  abstaining  from  fish  except  under  great  com- 
pulsion, and  we  have  in  this  a  touch  of  local  color 
and  of  local  prejudice.  It  was  because  fish  were 
in  such  disfavor  as  food  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Smyrna  that  the  poet  could  not  bring  himself  to 
serve  them  to  his  mighty  warriors.4 

All  the  lines  by  which  Homeric  poetry  traveled 
to  the  outer  world  converged  at  the  central  and 
western  coast  of  Asia  Minor.  Hence  came  the 
bards  who  recited  Homer  and  hence  originated 
the  colonies,  such  as  Sinope  and  Marseilles,  which 
furnished  manuscripts  for  the  scholars  of  Alex- 
andria. Cynaethus,  also,  is  said  to  have  taken 
the  knowledge  of  Homer  from  Chios  to  Sicily,  and 
Lycurgus  that  same  knowledge  from  Samos  to 
Sparta. 

Finally,  Smyrna  is  easily  the  preferred  city 
in  all  the  lives  of  Homer  and  among  all  the 
traditions  of  those  who  laid  claim  to  his  place  of 
birth ;  also  the  poet  was  called  by  a  second  name, 
Melesigenes,  from  the  river  Melas,  near  or  in 
Smyrna.  Whether  he  was  thus  called  because  he 
was  regarded  as  the  child  of  the  river  or  from 
some  festival  held  on  its  banks  cannot  now  be 
determined. 

The  language  employed,  the  indications  of  the 
poem,  the  radiation  of  the  knowledge  of  the  poetry 

*  ' '  Homeric  Heroes  and  Fish, ' '  Classical  Journal,  XII,  328. 


8  THE  UNITY  OF   HOMER 

from  the  west  and  central  coast  of  Asia  Minor, 
the  antipathy  to  fish  as  food,  the  fair  agreement 
of  tradition,  and  the  name  Melesigenes,  all  unite 
in  warranting  the  belief  that  the  poetry  of  Homer 
originated  in  the  neighborhood  of  Smyrna.  The 
island  of  Chios,  long  a  favored  spot  for  the  preser- 
vation of  his  poetry,  was  the  home  of  a  guild  of 
singers  who  called  themselves  the  Homeridae. 
We  do  not  know  whether  they  claimed  to  be  the 
descendants  or  the  successors  of  Homer,  but  it  is 
probable  that  they  regarded  themselves  as  pecu- 
liarly the  defenders  and  interpreters  of  the  poet 
whose  name  they  had  assumed. 

The  earliest  conjecture  we  have  regarding 
the  date  of  Homer  is  found  in  Herodotus  (n,  53), 
where,  in  contrasting  the  great  antiquity  of  Egypt 
with  the  recent  civilization  of  Greece,  the  his- 
torian says  that  he  would  not  assign  to  Homer 
an  earlier  date  than  four  hundred  years  before 
his  own  time,  and  this  opinion  he  has  not  derived 
from  others,  but  it  is  his  own  conclusion.  Since 
Herodotus  flourished  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century  before  Christ  his  estimate  would  put 
Homer  in  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century,  a  time 
in  Greek  civilization  which  has  left  surprisingly 
few  evidences  on  which  to  make  a  conjecture. 
How  important  the  independent  opinion  of  Hero- 
dotus is  we  may  judge  from  the  fact  that  even 
this  estimate  assigns  Homer  to  an  age  as  remote 
from  his  own  as  Columbus  is  from  our  times. 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS       9 

The  matters  in  the  poem  on  which  to  base 
inferences  in  regard  to  the  poet's  date  are  ex- 
tremely slight.  The  Odyssey  (u  89)  describes  the 
wrestlers  as  girding  up  their  loins.  But  we  know- 
that  wrestlers  dispensed  with  the  girdle  at  the 
fifteenth  Olympiad;  hence  the  presumption  that 
this  verse  is  older  than  720.  The  poet  in  speaking 
of  Phoenicia  never  mentions  Tyre  or  the  Tyrians, 
but  onlv  Sidon  and  the  Sidonians.  Sidon  was 
completely  overthrown  in  677,  leaving  Tyre  as  the 
sole  heir  to  the  greatness  of  Phoenicia,  so  that  in 
the  use  of  the  words  Sidon  and  Sidonians  we  can 
say  no  more  than  that  Homer  was  describing  a 
condition  which  terminated  in  677  b.c5  The  fact 
that  Lydia  is  called  only  by  the  older  name 
Maeonia  gives  no  clue  to  the  date,  for  we  do  not 
know  when  the  name  was  changed  to  Lydia. 
Even  if  we  knew  definitely  it  must  be  remembered 
that  Homer  is  a  poet  and  that  he  might  have  used 
the  old  name  even  after  the  new  name  had  come 
into  general  use,  just  as  Milton  refers  to  Alex- 
ander as  the  Emathian  conqueror  at  a  time  when 
Macedonia  was  universally  known,  and  Emathia 
only  a  learned  survival.  On  the  other  hand 
Homer  speaks  of  the  men  who  fought  at  Troy 
as  belonging  to  a  race  greatly  superior  to  those 
of  his  own  day.  But  even  here  his  references 
are  so  vague  that  many  early  and  some  late 
scholars  would  make  Homer  a  contemporary  with 
the  events  he  describes. 

s  "Sidon  and  the  Sidonians  in  Homer,"  Cl-ass.  Jour.,  XIV,  525. 


10  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

The  discoveries  made  at  Troy,  Mycenae,  and 
elsewhere  suffice  to  show  that  Troy  was  destroyed 
during  the  twelfth  century,  so  that  Homer  must 
be  subsequent  to  that  event.  The  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey  seem  to  have  been  known  to  Hesiod, 
who  quoted  them,  changed  or  corrected  them,  but 
never  mentioned  their  names  or  the  name  of  their 
author.  Hesiod  can  hardly  be  put  later  than  the 
middle  of  the  eighth  century.  Terpander  is  said 
to  have  won,  about  675  B.C.,  a  victory  in  a  musical 
contest  in  which  he  set  to  new  music  the  words 
of  Homer;  and  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  seem 
to  furnish  the  background  or  the  starting  point 
for  that  mass  of  tradition  which  was  put  in  verse 
during  the  early  Olympiads. 

However  much  Homer  may  have  influenced 
the  poetry  of  the  ages  immediately  succeeding  his 
own,  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  no  mention  of 
his  name  by  any  writer  before  the  latter  half  of 
the  sixth  century  has  been  preserved,  and  even 
that  mention  owes  its  preservation  to  writers 
living  after  Christ,  who  quoted  it  in  their  own 
works.  The  first  known  reference  is  found  in  a 
fragment  of  Xenophanes  from  Colophon,  who 
censured  Homer  for  the  ignoble  traits  he  assigned 
to  the  gods.  The  language  used  by  Xenophanes 
argues  for  great  antiquity  of  the  poetry  of  Homer, 
especially  the  phrase:  "From  the  beginning, 
according  to  Homer,  for  all  have  learned  from 
him."  This  first  preserved  reference  to  Homer 
is  hardly  older  than  550,  while  the  Iliad  and  the 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS  11 

Odyssey  are  first  referred  to  by  name  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Herodotus,  or  about  one  hundred  yean 
after  Xenophanes. 

The  night  which  surrounds  Homer  is  thus 
both  long  and  dark,  but  more  wonderful  than  these 
silences  is  the  fact  that  these  two  great  poen 
have  come  down  to  us  entire.  No  gaps  are  found 
in  either,  no  incomplete  lines,  no  half-preserved 
sentences.  Not  a  single  ancient  writer  has  alluded 
to  a  single  scene  of  the  Iliad  or  the  Odyssey  which 
is  not  found  in  the  present  text  of  these  poems, 
even  if  certain  random  verses  have  been  pre- 
served which  are  not  in  the  Vulgate. 

What  the  preservation  of  poems  so  ancient 
and  so  bulky  signifies  may  be  grasped  by  the  fact 
that  many  early  epics,  such  as  the  Thebais,  the 
Cypria,  the  Little  Iliad,  the  Destruction  of  Troy, 
the  Nostoi,  poems  of  the  Epic  Cycle,  have  been 
entirely  lost,  or  preserved  merely  by  chance 
quotations  or  references  in  late  authors.  The 
advanced  critics  of  Homer,  however,  such  as  Ver- 
rall,  Murray,  and  Wilamowitz,  would  draw  no 
distinction  between  the  Iliad,  the  Odyssey  and 
these  lost  poems ;  they  assign  them  all  to  the  same 
source.  Verrall  in  an  article  published  in  the 
Quarterly  Review  for  July,  1908  said:  "Homer, 
so-called,  is  a  nebulous  mass  of  old  poetry  reduced 
into  distinct  bodies,  such  as  Iliad,  Odyssey, 
Cypria,  Aethiopis,  Little  Iliad,  Nostoi,  and  so 
forth  for  educational  purposes  by  learned  Athen- 
ians, about  600-500  b.c."    Murray  in  his  Rise  of 


12  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

the  Greek  Epic  tries  to  prove  that  all  the  early 
epics  were  the  slow  growth  of  centuries,  the 
work  of  numberless  bards.  On  page  200  he  says : 
"The  truth  is  that  all  these  poems  or  masses  of 
tradition  in  verse  form  were  growing  up  side  by 
side  for  centuries/ '  Wilamowitz  constantly 
argues  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century 
all  epic  poetry  was  assigned  to  Homer,  and  even 
so  clear  a  thinker  as  Andrew  Lang  agreed  with 
that  opinion,  for  in  a  lecture  published  in  Anthro- 
pology and  the  Classics  he  said:  "To  Homer 
early  historic  Greece  attributed  the  great  body  of 
ancient  epic  poetry." 

If  these  statements  be  true  and  early  Greece 
did  regard  all  this  vast  cycle  as  of  common  origin 
and  of  equal  merit,  then  little  remains  to  be  said 
in  regard  to  Homer,  the  man,  the  creator  of  the 
Iliad  and  the  Odyssey,  since  so  many  and  so  bulky 
poems  could  never  have  originated  with  any  one 
man,  but  must  have  been  the  work  of  guilds  or 
schools  cooperating  through  many  ages.  A  dis- 
cussion of  the  assumed  ancient  belief  that  Homer 
was  the  author  of  all  these  poems  deserves  first 
consideration  in  any  comprehensive  treatment  of 
the  Homeric  Question. 

There  is  not  a  writer  before  the  death  of 
Aristotle  who  quotes,  naming  the  poem,  a  single 
verse  from  any  of  these  poems,  except  the  Iliad 
and  the  Odyssey,  as  the  work  of  Homer;  not  one 
who  writes  "As  Homer  said  in  the  Thebais,  the 
Cypria,  or  the  Little  Iliad."    Writers  of  the  best 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS     18 

period  frequently  quote  the  Iliad  or  the  Odyssey 

with  the  introductory  words  "as   Homer  in 

the  Iliad,"  or  "as  Homer  Bays  in  the  Odyssey." 
and  the  common  method  in  early  writers  or  gram- 
marians is  to  refer  to  the  poems  of  the  Epic  <  \  cle 
thus:  "as  the  writer  of  the  Cypria  says,"  or  "as 
the  poet  of  the  Little  Iliad  wrote,"  and  so  with 
all  the  Cycle;  but  I  have  never  seen  an  early 
example  of  such  indefinite  phrases  used  concern- 
ing the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey.  As  already  stated, 
the  regular  form  is  "as  Homer  says  in  the  Iliad," 
or  "as  Homer  says  in  the  Odyssey. "  The  author- 
ship of  these  two  poems  is  never  referred  to  some 
indefinite  poet  or  source. 

Every  argument  which  is  used  to  prove  the 
Homeric  authorship  of  the  Cycle — and  by  the 
Cycle  I  mean  the  poetry  connected  with  Thebes 
and  Troy  other  than  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey — 
and  all  the  quotations  are  either  from  very  late 
writers,  or  from  the  lost  works  of  early  writers, 
fragments  accidentally  preserved  and  out  of  their 
context,  where  the  meaning  is  largely  a  matter 
of  interpretation,  conjecture,  or  emendation.  All 
these  indirect  references  are  to  be  treated  with 
the  greatest  caution,  and  no  unsupported  quota- 
tion from  any  writer,  however  good  or  early  that 
writer  may  be,  is  to  be  regarded  as  absolutely 
conclusive. 

Literarv  references  bv  modern  writers  are 
often  notoriously  inaccurate;  for  example,  in  the 
American  Magazine  for  January,  1920  a  list  of 


14  THE  UNITY  OF   HOMER 

questions  is  asked,  the  ability  to  answer  which  is 
to  be  regarded  as  the  mark  of  a  broad  education. 
One  of  these  questions  is,  "For  what  is  Sheridan 
famous  ?"  On  a  later  page  the  answer  is  given, 
' '  Sheridan  wrote  '  She  Stoops  to  Conquer. '  ' '  The 
man  who  wrote  that  question  and  answer  was 
probably  sitting  in  a  room  which  contained  the 
works  both  of  Sheridan  and  of  Goldsmith,  yet  if 
that  same  writer  had  lived  two  thousand  years 
ago  such  a  statement  would  be  regarded  as  final 
proof.  It  is  impossible  to  exaggerate  the  mass 
of  false  references  in  our  modern  journals,  or 
the  number  of  quotations  falsely  assigned  to 
Shakespeare  and  the  Bible.  The  scarcity  and  the 
expense  of  books  in  early  ages  must  have  made 
accurate  quotation  far  more  difficult  then  than 
now.  Plutarch,  Aelian,  and  Athenaeus,  three  of 
our  chief  sources  for  references  to  older  writers, 
are  woefully  inexact,  as  any  competent  reader 
of  these  learned  men  knows;  and  Plato  in  two 
places  quotes  the  same  verse  from  Hesiod,  but 
in  different  ways.  He  repeatedly  gives  parts  of 
two  verses  as  if  they  were  a  single  verse,  and  he 
also  has  a  jumbled  form  of  perfectly  good  verses, 
while  in  the  spurious  Theages  (125b)  there  is 
quoted  as  if  from  Euripides  a  verse  which  on 
excellent  authority  is  assigned  to  Sophocles. 
Aristotle,  the  most  learned  man  of  antiquity, 
quotes  the  words  of  Odysseus  (jj  219)  as  the 
words  of  Calypso  (Ethics  n,  9,  3) ;  also  he  repeats 
the  speech  of  Agamemnon  (B  393)  as  if  spoken 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS  16 
by  Hector  (Ethic8  m,  11,  4),  and  in  his  Eh  i 

(in,  9,  p.  L409  b  8)  he  assigns  a  verse  of  Euripides 
to  Sophocles.    Aristophanes  (Birds  575)  sabsti- 

tutes  Iris  for  Hera  in  quoting  Iliad  E  77-.  The 
scholia  often  assign  verses  to  Homer  which  are  in 
the  extant  works  of  other  writers,  e.g.  the  scholium 
to  Pindar  (0.  xm,  12)  credits  Homer  with  a  vera 
which  is  found  in  the  poetry  of  Theognis,  and 
another  scholium  to  Pindar  (A",  vi,  91)  quotes 
Homer  as  the  source  of  a  verse  which  is  found  in 
Hesiod.  The  outstanding  importance  of  Homer 
made  him  a  sort  of  universal  source  for  all  kinds 
of  verses.  This  must  never  be  forgotten  in  esti- 
mating the  importance  of  various  quotations.  In 
view  of  these  undoubted  errors  in  primary  and 
secondary  sources  we  cannot  accept  quotations 
made  bv  late  and  inaccurate  writers  as  final 
evidence  of  authorship,  unless  that  evidence  is 
definite,  unequivocal,   and  confirmed  by  reliable 

testimony. 

The  inferences  that  Homer  was  early  regarded 
as  the  author  of  the  Epic  Cycle  are  as  follow-  \ 
The  Thebais*  an  assumed  poem  dealing  with  the 
Argive  expedition  against  Thebes,  is  said  by 
Wilamowitz,  Finsler,  and  many  others  to  be  the 
first  poem  to  be  definitely  assigned  to  Homer. 
This  first  reference  to  Homer  was  made  by  Cal- 
linus,  an  elegiac  poet,  who  lived  in  Ephesus  early 
in  the  seventh  century  before  Christ.  The  source 
of  this  statement  is  a  sentence  in  Pausanias  ix,  9, 5. 

e  "Homer  as  the  Poet  of  the  Thebais,"  Classical  Philolog-M, 
XVI,  20  ff. 


16  THE  UNITY  OF   HOMER 

"The  epic  poem,  the  Thebais,  was  written  in 
regard  to  this  war,  and  Calaenus,  when  he  speaks 
of  this  poem,  said  that  he  regarded  the  author  as 
Homer.  [It  may  also  be  translated,  he  regarded 
the  author  as  an  Homer.]  Many  others  agree 
with  Calaenus  in  this,  but  while  I  praise  this  poem 
I  yet  put  it  after  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey.' ' 
It  seems  that  all  that  this  passage  is  intended 
to  show  is  the  high  estimate  in  which  the  Thebais 
was  held  and  that  even  here  the  author  of  that 
poem  is  regarded  as  an  equal  with  the  great 
Homer.  Not  a  manuscript  has  the  word  Callinus 
in  this  place,  but  all  have  Calaenus,  so  that  Cal- 
linus is  simply  an  emendation.  The  word  Callinus 
is  a  pure  conjecture;  but  even  if  all  the  manu- 
scripts had  the  form  Callinus,  it  would  be  more 
than  doubtful  if  the  poet  of  Ephesus  was  intended, 
for  that  early  poet  was  so  little  known  that  his 
name  is  not  mentioned  until  Strabo,  and  when 
Strabo  mentions  the  name  he  adds  the  phrase, 
"the  poet  of  the  elegy"  (xiii,  604) ;  and  when  he 
refers  to  him  a  little  later  he  again  adds  the 
words  "the  poet  of  the  elegy' '  (xiii,  627).  The 
repetition  of  the  phrase  shows  that  the  mere 
mention  of  his  name  could  not  be  regarded  as  a 
sufficient  indication  of  the  person  intended. 

Pausanias  just  a  little  earlier  (viii,  25,  4)  has 
said  that  the  story  of  the  expedition  against 
Thebes  had  been  put  into  verse  by  Antimachus, 
who  was  at  the  time  of  Pausanias  one  of  the  most 
popular  of  all  the  Greek  poets,  and  Dio  Cassius 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREBE        17 

(lxix,  4)  is  the  authority  for  the  statement  thai 
Hadrian  esteemed  Antimacbufl  and  his  Theba 

more  highly  than  the  poetry  of   Homer.     Kink.-I 

gives  fifty-six  fragments  from  this   Thebais  of 
Antimachus,  while  he  has  bat  Beven   from  the 

earlier  poem,  most  of  which  are  doubtful 

The  earlier  fragments  arc  so  few,  while  those 
from  the  poem  by  Antimachus  are  so  many,  that 
the  mere  mention  of  the  name  Thebais  is  almo 
certain  to  refer  to  the  poem  by  Antimachus;  but 
here  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  since 
Pausanias  (vm,  25,  4)  says  he  is  referring  to  that 
poem.  Hadrian  put  Antimachus  ahead  of  Homer, 
Calaenus  made  him  the  equal,  and  Pausanias, 
even  if  he  appreciated  the  greatness  of  the 
Thebais  of  Antimachus,  put  him  just  behind 
Homer.  Paley,  in  his  Homeri  Quae  Nunc  Extant 
etc.,  p.  39,  argued  that  the  Antimachus  of  the 
Thebais  was  really  the  poet  of  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey.  There  is  nothing  in  Pausanias  to  show 
that  he  is  not  referring  to  Antimachus ;  the  read- 
ing is  not  Callinus,  but  Calaenus.  And  even  if  the 
reading  were  Callinus,  there  is  nothing  to  connect 
him  with  the  poet  of  Ephesus ;  yet  this  is  the  sole 
evidence  for  the  assertion  that  Homer  was  re- 
garded in  the  seventh  century  b.c.  as  the  poet  of 
the  Thebais. 

The  second  writer  quoted  to  prove  that  Homer 
wTas  regarded  as  the  author  of  the  Thebais  is 
Herodotus,  from  whom  the  following  passage  is 
cited:  "The  tyrant  of  Sicyon,  Cleisthenes,  when 


18  THE  UNITY  OF   HOMER 

he  was  at  war  with  Argos,  banished  the  Homeric 
bards  because  the  poetry  of  Homer  so  constantly 
praised  Argos  and  the  Argives. "    (v,  67.) 

Grote,  History  of  Greece,  II,  174,  argued  that 
it  must  have  been  the  Thebais  which  so  angered 
Cleisthenes,  and  Wilamowitz  followed  him  by  say- 
ing (H.  U.  352) :  "This  can  make  sense  here  only 
if  Homer  is  regarded  as  the  poet  of  the  Thebais." 
Finsler  accepts  this  as  an  established  fact,  saying 
in  his  Homer,  I,  64:  "The  Thebais  is  meant,  when 
the  tyrant,  Cleisthenes,  banished  the  bards  from 
Sicyon,  since  the  Homeric  poetry  gave  too  little 
honor  to  Argos.' '  That  is,  they  all  assume  that 
there  is  not  enough  praise  of  the  Argives  in  the 
Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  to  arouse  either  the  pride 
of  the  men  of  Argos  or  the  envy  of  their  hostile 
neighbors;  hence  they  fly  to  an  assumed  Thebais, 
the  contents  of  which  are  also  assumed.  The 
Argives  or  Argos  are  named  in  every  book  of  the 
Iliad  except  book  twenty,  and,  despite  the  fact  that 
the  Odyssey  withdraws  to  Ithaca  or  to  fairyland, 
they  are  named  in  fifteen  books  of  that  poem; 
hence  they  are  named  in  thirty-eight  books  of 
our  Homer.  Hera  is  "Argive  Hera,"  Helen  is 
' '  Argive  Helen, ' '  and  Agamemnon  with  his  divine 
scepter  ruled  over  "many  isles  and  all  Argos.' ' 
Eawlinson,  with  no  thought  of  this  discussion, 
says  in  his  note  to  the  first  chapter  of  his  Herodo- 
tus: "The  ancient  superiority  of  Argos  is  indi- 
cated by  the  position  of  Agamemnon  at  the  time 
of  the  Trojan  War  and  by  the  use  of  Argive  in 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEE        19 

Homer  for  Greek  generally.     \<>  other  name 
a  single  people  is  used  in  the  same  generic  way." 
Here    this    competent    historian    baS68    the    claim 

for  Argive  superiority  entirely  on  the  campaign 

before  Troy,  that  is,  on  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey. 
However,  this  is  not  a  question  of  probabili- 
ties, for  we  know  from  the  men  of  Ariros  them- 
selves the  poetry  which  stirred  their  pride,  since 
we  have  a  copy  of  the  very  inscription  they  set 
up  in  honor  of  Homer.  This  inscription  is  added 
to  the  Contest  between  Homer  and  Ilesiod  as 
published  in  the  works  of  Hesiod.  The  account 
of  the  inscription  and  the  inscription  itself  is  as 
follows : 

The  leaders  of  Argos  rejoicing  greatly  in  the  fact 
that  their  own  people  have  been  so  highly  honored  by 
the  most  illustrious  of  poets  have  in  turn  loaded  hiin 
with  conspicuous  honors.  They  erected  a  bronze  image 
and  voted  him  a  sacrifice  for  each  day,  each  month,  each 
year,  and  in  addition  every  fifth  year  sent  an  offering 
for  his  glory  to  Chios.  On  his  image  they  engraved  the 
following  verses:  "This  is  divine  Homer,  who  adorned 
all  proud  Hellas  with  his  wonderful  poetic  skill  but  most 
of  all  he  honored  the  Argives,  who  humbled  the  god-built 
city  Troy,  as  a  requital  for  the  wrongs  done  to  the  fair- 
haired  Helen,  and  hence  the  proud-citied  state  worships 
him  with  divine  honors." 

Thus  wTe  have  from  the  Argives  themselves  the 
thing  in  Homer  wdiich  they  viewed  with  such 
boundless  pride,  and  this  was  no  exploit  con- 
nected with  Thebes :  it  was  the  expedition  against 
Troy;  that  is,  they  felt  exalted  because  Homer 
had  honored  them  in  the  Iliad  and  the  Odvssev 


20  THE  UNITY  OF   HOMER 

Thebes  is  not  mentioned  in  the  inscription.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  hostile  neighbors  would  envy 
them  that  very  thing  in  which  they  themselves 
took  such  unbounded  pride.  The  story  of  this 
expedition  is  found  in  no  assumed  Thebais,  but 
in  Homer,  our  Homer,  the  Homer  of  the  Iliad  and 
the  Odyssey. 

Inasmuch  as  Thebes  went  over  to  the  Persians 
it  would  seem  natural  for  the  Argives  to  stress 
their  old  conflicts  at  the  time  of  the  Persian  War, 
but  oddly  enough  the  Argives  never  lay  claim  to 
honor  or  favor  because  of  those  early  exploits. 
Yet  the  Athenians  at  the  battle  of  Plataea  claimed 
as  one  of  the  reasons  for  commanding  the  wing 
not  held  by  the  Spartans  their  own  services  at 
that  time,  and  they  said  (Her.  ix,  27)  :  "When  the 
Argives  led  their  troops  with  Polynices  against 
Thebes  and  were  slain  and  refused  burial,  it  is 
our  boast  that  we  went  out  against  the  Cad- 
maeans,  recovered  the  bodies  and  buried  them  at 
Eleusis  in  our  own  territory. ' '  In  the  face  of  this 
the  critics  assume  that  there  was  nothing  in  the 
Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  to  stir  the  pride  of  the 
Argives  or  to  arouse  the  envy  of  jealous  neigh- 
bors; accordingly  they  flee  to  a  poem  which  told 
how  these  same  Argives  could  not  bury  their  own 
slain  but  depended  on  the  mercies  of  a  foreign 
race  to  bury  them  in  a  foreign  soil.  The  love  the 
people  of  Argos  had  for  Homer  is  also  shown  by 
the  fact  that  Aristarchus  quoted  readings  from 
the  Argive  state  manuscript  of  both  the  Iliad  and 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS  21 

the  Odyssey,  but  there  is  not  the  Blighted  evident 
that  they  made  any  attempt   to  p         rvc  a  copy 
of  the  Thebais. 

The  third  proof  offered  for  the  Homeric 
authorship  of  the  Thebais  is  founded  on  the  Para- 
doxes of  Antigonus  of  Carystus,  chap.  25,  in  which 
a  reference  is  made  to  the  nature  of  the  polyp. 
The  quotation  is  introduced  with  the  words, 
"As  the  poet  has  written  in  the  much  quoted 
verses."  There  is  nothing  to  connect  this  either 
with  Homer  or  the  Thebais  except  the  fact  that 
the  author  is  referred  to  by  the  phrase,  "the 
poet,"o 7r<H77T77?, — a  phrase  often  used  of  Homer. 
The  reason  that  Homer  more  than  anyone  else 
is  called  the  poet  is  simply  because  he  is  quoted 
more  than  any  other.  But  he  has  no  vested  right 
in  these  words.  Plato  in  the  Laivs  (901  a)  refers 
to  Hesiod  with  the  unmodified  words  "the  poet," 
67rot77T7J?,and  we  know  that  Hesiod  is  the  one  thus 
designated,  since  an  extant  poem  of  that  author 
is  quoted.  There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that 
Antigonus  had  Homer  in  mind  as  the  author  of 
these  verses.  But  the  fact  that  Hesiod  has  been 
quoted  only  a  few  verses  previously,  and  his  well- 
known  references  to  the  polyp,  make  it  probable 
that  Hesiod  was  the  author  of  this  passage. 
These  three  references,  one  in  Herodotus,  one 
in  Antigonus,  and  one  in  Pausanias,  all  based  on 
unsupported  and  improbable  conjectures,  are  the 
only  evidence  presented  to  show  that  the  Greeks 
of  the  best  period  assigned  the  Thebais  to  Homer; 


22  THE  UNITY  OF   HOMER 

yet  if  one  reads  Wilamowitz'  latest  book  on 
Homer  he  is  made  to  feel  that  Homer's  earliest 
and  greatest  reputation  is  closely  connected  with 
this  hypothetical  Thebais. 

In  the  Panegyricus  158,  Isocrates  tells  of  the 
sadness  the  Greeks  always  feel  when  told  of  the 
wars  between  the  Greeks.  Then  he  adds:  "I 
think  that  the  poetry  of  Homer  has  received  the 
greater  glory  because  he  pictures  them  as  fighting 
foreigners,  and  it  was  just  because  of  this  that 
our  ancestors  honored  him  in  musical  festivals 
and  in  the  education  of  the  young.' '  Since  the 
Argive  expedition  was  a  war  between  Greeks,  this 
remark  of  Isocrates  would  have  been  absurd  if 
Homer  were  regarded  as  the  poet  of  the  Thebais, 
or  if  there  had  been  any  such  tradition.  This 
speech  of  Isocrates  was  no  random  production 
but  a  piece  of  literary  display  on  which  he  had 
spent  long  and  careful  labor,  and  is  a  far  better 
criterion  for  the  beliefs  of  his  own  and  the  preced- 
ing generation  than  the  random  remark,  con- 
jectural remark  at  that,  of  writers  coming  several 
centuries  later.  Homer  is  definitely  connected 
with  the  Thebais  in  the  Contest  between  Homer 
and  Hesiod,  but,  since  this  contains  the  name 
of  the  Emperor  Hadrian,  it  must  be  regarded  as 
a  late  production. 

The  Cyclic  poem  from  which  there  are  pre- 
served the  most  verses  is  the  Cypria,  the  poem 
which  tells  of  the  choice  of  Paris,  the  rape  of 
Helen,  and  in  general  the  events  connected  with 


HOMEB  AMONG  THB  ANCIENT  GREEKS  28 

the  Trojan  War  as  far  as  the  beginning  of  the 
Iliad.    Most  of  the  references  assign  this  poem  to 

Stasinus,  or  they  Leave  the  author  unnamed  and 
ambiguous,  as  "the  one  who  created  the  Cypria, 

6  ra  Kvirpta  7re7rou]Kas  .  6  ra  Kvirpia  7roi7j<ra<:,  or  "the 
poet    of    the    Cypria,"  «w  Kvrrpifov  ttoi^ttj^.       The 

extant  works  of  lmt  two  early  writers.  Berodotns 
and  Plato,  quote  the  Cypria,  In  Herodotus  there 
is  not  even  a  quotation,  only  a  loose  paraphr 

Herodotus  n,  117  contrasts  the  direct,  and  easy 
voyage  which  took  Helen  to  Troy  as  told  in  the 
( 'ypria  with  the  circuitous  journey  described  in 
the  Iliad,  and  hence,  he  said,  the  Cypria  could  not 
be  the  work  of  Homer.     This  is  the  onlv  direct 

■ 

reference  in  classical  Greek  to  Homer  as  the  poet 
of  the  Cypria,  and  this  reference  is  a  denial  of 
that  poem  to  Homer.  Wilamowdtz  jumps  from 
this  to  the  conclusion  that  here  is  the  first  doubt 
cast  on  Homer's  title  to  all  the  Cycle.  He  sees 
in  Herodotus  a  Luther  at  the  Diet  of  Worms,  who 
dared  defy  the  universal  opinion  of  society,  and 
accordingly  draws  the  inference  that  up  to  that 
time  no  one  had  ever  questioned  the  Homeric 
authorship  of  the  entire  mass  of  early  epic  poetry. 
He  is  referred  to  as  the  direct  ancestor  of  Wolf; 
and  just  as  Wolf  dared  assert  that  Homer  was 
not  the  author  of  all  the  Iliad,  so  Herodotus  dared 
proclaim  that  the  Cycle  was  not  all  by  Homer. 

The  life  of  Herodotus  was  exactly  contempo- 
rary with  the  rise  of  the  Sophists.     Protagor 
who  was  the  first  to  give  himself  that  name,  w, 


24  THE  UNITY  OF   HOMER 

born  in  a  neighboring  town  within  a  few  years  of 
the  birth  of  Herodotus.  The  Sophists  prided 
themselves  on  their  ability  to  prove  either  side  of 
any  question,  and  even  Socrates  was  accused  of 
taking  the  worse  side  and  making  it  appear  the 
better.  We  have,  under  the  famous  name  of 
Gorgias,  an  essay  or  speech  illustrating  how 
sophistic  skill  can  take  the  faults  of  Helen  and 
make  of  them  a  garland  of  virtues ;  and  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Antiphon  we  have  a  series  of  speeches  in 
which  it  is  shown  how  the  same  facts  may  be  used 
as  evidence  for  exactly  opposite  arguments.  No 
doubt  a  common  theme  for  these  sophistic  exer- 
cises would  be  the  question  of  authorship  of  poems 
of  doubtful  or  unknown  origin.  This  would  give 
abundant  opportunity  for  paradoxical  argumen- 
tative skill.  Herodotus  may  well  be  replying  to 
an  argument  of  this  sort  by  calling  attention  to 
something  which  had  been  overlooked.  Eecently 
a  modern  sophist  has  written  a  long  treatise  for 
the  purpose  of  proving  that  the  works  of  Shakes- 
peare were  written  by  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  just 
as  other  earlier  sophists  tried  to  prove  that  they 
were  written  by  Bacon.  If  a  modern  writer  should 
call  attention  to  some  point  or  fact  that  made 
impossible  either  of  these  theories,  would  that  be 
accepted  as  proof  that  this  scholar  stood  alone  in 
denying  a  common  belief?  In  the  age  when  the 
faith  of  all  believed  in  a  single  Homer,  Aristarchus 
made  many  comments  in  support  of  that  belief. 
We    know   that   these   comments   were    directed 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS     26 

against  the  paradoxes  of  Xenon,  and  that  it  was 
not  Aristarclnis  hut  Xenon  who  wa>  attacking  the 
common  belief.    We  can  assume  thai  Herodotus 

took  a  like  position  and  that   lie,  as  well  afl  Ari 

tarchus,  supported  the  accepted  beli<  Lgainsl 
the  Bophistic  vagaries.     The  passage  in   which 

Herodotus  furnishes  proof  that  the  Cypt  unci 

be  by  Homer  is  the  main  support  \'m  the  theory 
that  Homer  was  regarded  as  the  author  of  that 
poem. 

The  Cypria  is  quoted  by  Plato  in  the 
Euthyphro  12  a  in  a  manner  which  shows  that 
he  did  not  assign  it  to  Homer,  as  the  phrase 
6  TroiT)T7)<;  iiroiTjaev  o7rof7Jcra?  is  most  vague  and  in- 
definite. Aelian  is  sometimes  cited  to  prove  that 
Pindar  regarded  Homer  as  the  author  of  the 
Cypria.  The  passage  in  Aelian  (Var.  Hist,  ix,  15) 
is  as  follows : 

The  Argives  assign  to  Homer  the  first  place  in  poetry 
and  regarded  all  others  as  second  to  him.  They  sacrifice 
to  him,  inviting  Apollo  and  Homer.  This  also  is  said, 
that,  being  without  resources  to  dower  his  daughter,  he 
gave  her  as  a  present  the  Cypria.  Pindar  also  agrees 
in  this. 

Koi  ofjLoXoyei  tovto  UivSapos.  To  what  does  Pindar 
agree,  the  preeminence  of  Homer,  or  that  he  gave 
his  daughter  the  Cypria  as  a  dowry.7  It  is  very 
hard  to  decide,  since  we  have  no  inkling  of  the 
context  or  of  the  thing  which  Pindar  was  intend- 
ing to  say.  Aelian  in  this  passage  is  unusually 
obscure,  and  even  when  his  meaning  is  perfectly 
definite  he   is   so  unreliable  that   we  are   rarely 


26  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

certain  either  of  the  matter  or  the  person  quoted. 
This  applies  to  all  his  writings  and  most  of  all 
to  his  Varia  Historia  from  which  this  quotation 
is  taken,  since  it  has  been  preserved  only  in  ex- 
tracts and  the  original  was  culled  from  the  works 
of  men  many  of  whom  were  as  little  to  be  trusted 
as  Aelian  himself.  We  seem  to  be  forcing  even 
this  unreliable  witness,  when  we  quote  him  as 
saying  that  Pindar  regarded  Homer  as  the  author 
of  the  Cypria. 

A  late  age  which  ignorantly  referred  all  early 
poetry  to  Homer  was  forced  to  explain  the  fact 
that  most  of  these  poems  were  regarded  as  the 
works  of  other  poets,  and  so  took  refuge  in  the 
assumption  that,  even  if  these  poems  were  not 
credited  to  Homer,  he  had  composed  them  and 
then  waived  his  rights  therein  by  presenting  them 
to  the  poet  who  had  married  his  daughter,  or  that 
he  had  bartered  them  for  sustenance  to  the  men 
under  whose  names  they  had  circulated.  These 
tales  are  no  proof  that  Homer  was  regarded  as 
the  source  of  these  various  poems,  but  just  the 
reverse;  they  show  that  they  were  regarded  as 
the  creations  of  the  various  poets  whose  names 
they  bore.  Thus  was  provided  an  easy  explana- 
tion for  the  fact  that  the  names  of  Arctinus, 
Stasinus,  and  the  rest  were  attached  to  these 
poems,  although  all  the  early  epics  must  have  been 
the  work  of  Homer. 

Perhaps  the  sentence  most  quoted  to  prove 
that  Homer  was  regarded  as  the  author  of  the 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANTCIENT  GREEKS     27 

Epic  Cycle  is  the  one  in  which  Aeschylus  is  re- 
ported to  have  said  that  his  own  plays  were  but 
portions  from  the  great  Homeric  banquet.  Since 
very  few  of  the  plays  of  Aeschylus  touch  the 
traditions  given  in  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey,  the 
assumption  has  been  generally  made  that  a  wider 
meaning  must  be  given  to  the  word  Homer  than 
merely  the  poet  of  these  two  poems.  The  passage 
is  found  in  Athenaeus  viii,  347  e  : 

Ulpianus  seems  to  eat  nothing  befitting  a  man,  but 
to  watch  those  eating  to  see  if  they  overlook  a  bit  of  bone, 
of  gristle,  or  of  cartilage  from  the  pieces  served,  not 
heeding  the  words  of  the  noble  and  illustrious  Aeschylus, 
who  said  that  his  own  dramas  were  portions  from 
Homer's  great  feasts. 

o?  Ta?  avrov  rpaycpSias  refid^rj  elvai  eXeye  rcov  'Ofirjpov 

fieydXcov  heitnxov.  Even  those  who  interpret  this  as 
the  statement  of  the  poet  that  he  took  his  plays 
from  Homer  find  it  difficult  to  explain  how  the 
Persians,  the  Prometheus  Bound,  the  Hiketides, 
could  have  thus  originated.  Those  who  try  to 
render  re/iaxv  by  crumbs  or  scraps  miss  the  mean- 
ing entirely,  for  the  word  means  portions  or  slices 
offish,  the  choicest  of  Athenian  foods  (Phrynichus 
xm  to  Be  re/jLaxos  povov  eVl  IxOvos).  Rutherford  in 
a  note  to  this  definition  gives  a  long  list  of  quota- 
tions to  show  that  this  word  denotes  the  best  and 
most  coveted  of  courses.  The  words  in  Athenaeus 
which  immediately  follow,  "Aeschylus,  even  when 
defeated  in  a  dramatic  contest,  proudly  said  that 
he  left  the  decision  to  time,  since  he  knew  that  he 
would  receive  his  merited  honors,"  show  that  the 


28  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

poet  was  not  speaking  in  humility  but  in  pride, 
and  that  he  is  not  represented  as  comparing  his 
tragedies  to  crumbs  from  the  Homeric  banquets, 
but  to  whole  courses  or  portions  which  were  left 
uneaten,  or  as  the  poet  calls  them  Tefxdxn- 

The  meaning  then  is  that  some  small-minded 
fellow  sat  searching  for  neglected  scraps  which 
the  feasters  rejected  or  overlooked,  while 
Aeschylus  was  able  to  secure  whole  portions  of 
the  choicest  viands  from  the  banquet  set  before 
Homer.  It  was  the  good  luck  of  Aeschylus  that 
the  Homeric  banquet  was  so  lavish  that  he  was 
not  reduced  to  crumbs  but  could  feast  on  whole 
courses  which  the  earlier  poet  did  not  use.  If 
one  will  read  the  context  in  Athenaeus  which  just 
precedes  and  immediately  follows  the  quotation 
from  Aeschylus,  he  will  see  that  the  poet  is  not 
speaking  in  self -depreciation7  but  exultation.  No 
good  Greek  ever  spoke  with  false  humility  of  his 
own  work — Uriah  Heep  was  not  a  native  of 
Attica.  This  interpretation  makes  impossible  the 
presumption  that  Aeschylus  regarded  Homer  as 
the  poet  of  the  entire  Cycle.  Pindar  refers  to 
Homer  by  name  several  times,  each  time  a  free 
adaptation  of  our  present  Homer,  just  the  adap- 
tation needed  to  change  the  epic  meter  and 
dialect  into  the  lyric  strains  and  dialect  of  Pindar. 
Aristophanes  in  the  extant  plays  refers  to  Homer 
or  quotes  him  six  times,  either  in  an  exact  quota- 

7  The  bearing  of  the  boast  of  Aeschylus,  that  ' '  lie  left  the 
decision  in  regard  to  his  tragedies  to  the  verdict  of  time, ' '  was 
pointed  out  to  me  by  Professor  Ivan  M.  Linforth. 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS  29 

tion  or  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  he  is 
referring  to  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey.  In  a  frag- 
ment of  the  earliest  play  of  this  comic  poet  an 
old  man  questions  a  youth  on  the  meaning  of  two 
obscure  Homeric  words,  both  of  which  are  in  our 
present  text  of  Homer. 

Athenaeus  (iv  172  e),  says  that  in  a  poem  of 
Simonides  the  following  verses  are  used  in  regard 
to  Meleager:  "Who  surpassed  all  young  men  in 
the  use  of  the  spear,  hurling  it  over  the  eddying 
Anaurus  from  Iolcus,  rich  in  vines.  Thus  Homer 
and  Stesichorus  sang  to  their  people.''  This  quo- 
tation is  so  indefinite,  so  out  of  all  connection 
and  context,  that  it  is  rash  to  hazard  an  interpre- 
tation. The  meaning  might  be  clear  if  the  quota- 
tion were  longer.  We  know  that  in  the  story  of 
the  ninth  book  of  the  Iliad,  Phoenix  tried  to  im- 
press Achilles  with  horror  of  the  ruin  wrought 
by  the  unyielding  attitude  of  Meleager.  This 
obstinacy  of  Meleager  may  be  the  thing  to  which 
reference  is  here  made,  but  the  fragment  is  too 
brief  to  give  any  indication  of  the  use  to  which 
the  tradition  was  applied.  The  fragment  is  purely 
negative  and  yields  nothing  on  which  to  build 
theories  of  contents  or  of  authorship. 

The  last  proof  which  I  shall  quote  from 
classical  writers  that  Homer  was  regarded  as  the 
poet  of  the  Epic  Cycle  is  furnished  by  the  speech 
of  Aeschines  against  Timarchus  (128  if.),  a  speech 
delivered  in  345  b.c,  that  is,  after  the  death  of 
both  Xenophon  and  Plato  and  during  the  prime 


30  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

of  Aristotle.  In  this  speech  the  orator  said  that 
Homer,  in  the  Iliad,  before  anything  happened, 
often  used  the  phrase  " rumor  came  to  the  army," 
<E>?7/i?7  B*  efc  o-Tparbv  rj\0e.  These  exact  words  are 
not  found  in  the  present  Iliad.  The  assumption 
has  therefore  been  made  that  Aeschines  must  have 
meant  the  Little  Iliad;  and  since  the  contents  of 
that  poem  are  almost  unknown  it  is  easy  to  sup- 
pose that  it  had  many  examples  of  that  phrase. 
Homer  does  not  use  the  word  (f>vM  in  this  phrase, 
but  does  have  the  exact  synonym,  the  highly  poetic 
ocraa1  in  several  passages,  where  the  meaning  is 
essentially  the  same  as  that  given  by  Aeschines: 

B  93  :  fxera  he  a<f>iv  oaaa  &e$r)€LV 

orpvvova*  levai^  Ato?  ayyeXos. 

(J  413  :    oaaa  8  *  dp '  ayyekos  obtca  Kara  tttoXlv 
co^ero  irdvTrj. 

So  also  in  a  282,  /S  216.  In  all  these  sentences  the 
mysterious  oaaa  is  used  in  exactly  the  same  sense 
as  the  <j>vM  of  Aeschines,  and  it  is  as  unreasonable 
to  look  elsewhere  for  the  origin  of  the  phrase  used 
by  the  orator  as  it  would  be  to  seek  for  some  other 
source  than  Bishop  Berkeley  for  the  common 
quotation,  "Westward  the  star  of  empire  takes 
its  way,"  although  he  really  said  "Westward  the 
course  of  empire  takes  its  way."  Thus  all  the 
difference  between  Homer  and  Aeschines  is  that 
the  orator  substituted  the  prose  <f>vM  for  the 
highly  poetic  oaaa. 

The  evidence  which  I  have  presented  is  sub- 
stantially all  that  can  be  gleaned  from  all  the 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS  31 

writers  before  the  death  of  Aristotle  to  show  that 
Homer  was  regarded  until  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century  as  the  poet  of  the  great  mass  of  early 
epic  poetry.  Not  one  clear  and  definite  proof  can 
be  found ;  each  is  weak,  improbable,  and  dependent 
on  forced  interpretations  or  forced  conjectures 
and  emendations. 

The  reasons  for  believing  that  the  Greeks  of 
the  best  period  did  not  regard  Homer  as  the 
author  of  the  Trojan  and  Theban  Cycle  are 
definite  and  numerous : 

1.  Not  a  single  writer  of  the  best  period  quotes 
a  single  verse  as  Homeric  from  the  entire  Cycle; 
not  one  example  of,  for  instance,  "  Homer  says  in 
the  Tkebais,"  "Homer  says  in  the  Cypria";  while 
hundreds  of  verses  are  quoted  from  the  Iliad  and 
the  Odyssey  as  the  words  of  Homer. 

2.  A  young  man  who  is  one  of  the  speakers  in 
Xenophon's  Symposium  (ni,  5),  the  scene  of  which 
is  laid  at  about  420  b.c.,  says:  "My  father,  eager 
to  have  me  become  a  good  man,  compelled  me  to 
commit  to  memory  all  the  poetry  of  Homer,  and 
thus  it  happens  that,  even  now,  I  can  repeat  from 
memory  all  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey. ' '  Here  the 
words,  "all  the  poetry  of  Homer/'  and  "the  Iliad 
and  the  Odyssey/'  are  interchangeable  terms. 
Antisthenes  replies  to  the  young  man  that  this  is 
no  great  accomplishment,  since  all  the  rhapsodists 
know  all  these  poems,  too.  Not  a  man  in  that 
group,  not  even  the  captious  Socrates,  suggested 
that   in   using   the   phrase,    "all   the   poetry    of 


32  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Homer,' '  he  must  remember  that  other  poems 
than  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  have  been  assigned 
to  Homer.  Xenophon  is  the  best  possible  author- 
ity. He  is  early,  is  acquainted  with  many  lands, 
a  man  of  the  world  as  well  as  a  man  of  letters. 
He  gives  us  the  unequivocal  statement  that  in  his 
time  among  educated  Athenians  Homeric  poetry 
was  regarded  as  coextensive  with  the  Iliad  and 
the  Odyssey. 

3.  An  easy  proof  that  the  Greeks  of  the  best 
period  never  regarded  Homer  as  the  author  of 
the  Cycle  is  found  in  the  fact  that  Homer  was 
to  them  the  ideal  of  the  best  in  poetry,  to  approach 
him  was  the  highest  praise  any  work  of  genius 
could  receive,  and  the  poetry  of  the  Cycle  was 
generally  despised  and  neglected.  A  measure  of 
the  high  esteem  felt  for  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey 
and  the  low  regard  in  which  the  Cycle  was  held 
is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey, 
despite  their  great  length,  have  come  down  to  us 
entire,  and,  even  if  they  had  been  lost,  quotations 
therefrom  and  references  thereto  are  so  manv  and 
so  full  that  we  could  reconstruct  their  general 
outline  from  the  material  thus  furnished,  while 
the  poems  of  the  Cycle  are  so  utterly  and  com- 
pletely lost  that  we  depend  on  a  brief  late  prose 
summary  for  practically  all  our  knowledge  of 
them.  Not  a  single  line  of  some  of  them  has 
been  preserved,  and  Kinkel  and  Allen,  in  their 
full  and  exhaustive  collection  of  the  fragments, 
can  not  produce  ten  verses  from  all  the   Cycle 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS  33 

which  are  found  in  the  works  of  writers  who  lived 
before  the  death  of  Aristotle.  It  is  a  startling 
proof  of  the  different  regard  in  which  the  Iliad, 
the  Odyssey,  and  the  Epic  Cycle  were  held  that, 
according  to  Kenyon,  in  the  fragments  of  known 
classical  writers  discovered  in  Egypt,  far  more 
than  half  of  the  total  are  from  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey,  while  not  a  trace  of  the  Cyclic  poems 
has  been  found.  Allen  publishes  one  doubtful 
cyclic  papyrus  fragment. 

The  reason  for  the  neglect  of  these  poems  in 
Greece  and  in  Egypt  is  found  in  their  small  poetic 
merit  and  in  their  general  lack  of  constructive 
ability.  As  proofs  of  this  I  shall  furnish  only 
five,  but  important,  witnesses.  Proclus,  to  whom 
we  are  indebted  for  most  of  our  scanty  knowledge 
of  the  Cycle,  says,  ' '  The  poems  of  the  Cycle  were 
not  preserved  for  their  poetic  merit,  but  because 
of  the  traditions  and  the  mythology  they  con- 
tained. "  Horace,  who,  although  a  Roman  poet, 
is  earlier  than  much  of  the  learned  literature  of 
the  Greeks,  says  of  Homer  that  he  is  the  poet  of 
perfect  taste,  qui  nil  molitur  inepte,  but  he  never- 
theless holds  up  to  ridicule  the  creative  futility 
of  the  Cyclic  poets  and  contrasts  that  futility  with 
the  unerring  judgment  of  Homer.  Callimachus, 
the  learned  librarian  of  Alexandria,  refers  to 
Homer  as  the  "divine  Homer' '  (Ep.  61),  but  he 
also  says  "I  hate  the  cyclic  poem. "s     (Ep.  29.) 

s  Ludwich,  Be  Cyclo  Homerico  (Konigsberg,  1905),  suggests 
that  Callimachus  may  be  referring  here  to  an  arrangement  of 
words,  such  as  appeared  on  the  tomb  of  Midas,  which  is  discussed 


34  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Important  as  these  witnesses  are  in  regard  to 
the  comparative  merits  of  the  Iliad,  the  Odyssey, 
and  the  Cycle,  they  are  as  nothing,  since  we  have 
the  testimony  of  Aristotle,  a  man  who  had  the 
literature  before  him  and  who  had  the  ability  to 
appreciate  it.  In  all  his  writings  on  poetry 
Aristotle  regarded  Homer  as  quite  alone,  the  per- 
fect example  of  taste,  invention,  and  of  execution. 
In  his  discussion  of  the  unity  of  plot  (Poetics  viii) 
he  says:  "Homer  evidently  understood  that  point 
perfectly,  whether  by  art  or  by  instinct,  in  exactly 
the  same  way  that  he  excels  the  rest  in  every 
respect.' '  By  "the  rest"  he  means  the  poets  of 
the  Epic  Cycle,  and  again  he  says  (Poetics  xxm) : 
'  *  Here  then  the  transcendent  excellence  of  Homer 
is  manifest.  He  never  attempts  to  make  the  whole 
war  of  Troy  the  subject  of  his  poem,  although  that 
war  had  a  beginning,  a  middle,  and  an  end.  All 
other  poets  took  a  single  period,  a  single  hero, 
or  a  single  action  indeed,  but  with  a  multiplicity 
of  parts.  Thus  did  the  author  of  the  Cypria  and 
of  the  Little  Iliad."  Similar  ideas  abound  in  the 
works  of  Aristotle,  that  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey 


in  Plato's  Phaedrus  264  D,  and  that  he  is  not  considering  the 
Epic  Cycle.  The  words  of  Proclus,  oi  ixtvroi  y'  dpxcuoi  icai  rbv 
KijkXov  dvacptpovaiv  ds  avrbv,  which  are  generally  made  the 
starting  point  for  the  assumption  of  Homeric  authorship  of  the 
Cycle  and  are  the  first  authority  thus  quoted  by  Christ-Schmid, 
are  explained  by  Ludwich  as  having  no  sort  of  connection  with 
the  Epic  Cycle,  but  simply  referring  to  the  word-play  as  given 
in  the  Phaedrus.  Just  as  Homer  was  regarded  as  the  father  of 
oratory  and  tragedy,  so  to  him  was  referred  the  creation  of  this 
play  on  words.  This  interpretation  removes  much  of  the  evidence 
for  the  theory  that  Homer  was  early  credited  with  the  authorship 
of  the  Epic  Cycle. 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS     35 

show  exactly  the  same  high  poetic  skill,  the  same 
perfect  control  of  plot,  and  in  all  these  matters 
stand  alone  and  apart  from  all  the  poems  of 
the  Epic  Cycle.  And  in  the  Panathenaicus  of 
Isocrates  (xn,  263),  an  assumed  speaker  says  of  a 
certain  group  of  literary  productions  that  "They 
are  as  inferior  to  the  work  of  Isocrates  as  those 
were  inferior  to  Homer  who  attempted  like  themes 
with  those  put  in  verse  by  that  great  poet. " 
From  these  primary  proofs  it  is  evident  that 
the  Iliad  and  the  Odvssev  were  totallv  unlike  all 
the  other  poems  of  the  Cycle.  Yet  in  the  face  of 
such  conclusive  evidence  we  are  calmly  assured 
that  all  these  poems,  the  Iliad,  the  Odyssey,  the 
Thebais,  the  Cypria,  and  all  the  Cycle  were  simply 
parts  of  a  like  mass  of  poetry,  all  bearing  the 
same  marks  and  all  assigned  to  the  same  poet, 
Homer.  I  am,  however,  unable  to  find  any  clear 
and  conclusive  evidence  that  a  single  writer  be- 
fore the  death  of  Aristotle  assigned  any  poem 
of  the  Cycle  to  Homer,  or  to  find  any  suspicion 
cast  on  the  Homeric  authorship  of  the  Iliad  and 
the  Odyssey. 

It  is  worth  the  while  to  set  over  against  every- 
thing that  has  been  written  on  the  Epic  Cycle 
from  Welcker  to  Wilamowitz  these  two  sentences : 
"My  father  had  me  commit  to  memory  all  the 
poetry  of  Homer  and  I  can  now  repeat  by  heart 
all  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey,' '  and  "Homer, 
admirable  as  he  is  in  every  other  respect,  is 
especially  so  in  this,  that  he  alone  among  the  epic 


36  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

poets  is  not  unaware  of  the  part  to  be  played  by 
the  poet  himself  in  the  poem. "  (Xen.  Sym.  in,  5, 
Aristotle  Poetics  xxrv.)  These  two  passages  do 
not  need  to  be  emended  and  they  need  no  exegesis ; 
hence  they  give  no  proper  sphere  for  imaginative 
and  creative  scholarship.  But  they  satisfy  me 
and  convince  me  that  Homeric  studies  have  no 
need  to  build  on  airy  speculations  when  they  have 
as  a  foundation  such  solid  and  unequivocal  facts. 
The  assumption  of  most  critics  has  been  that 
in  the  early  literary  ages  of  Greece  Homer  was 
a  general  name  to  which  was  assigned  the  entire 
mass  of  early  epic  poetry,  and  that  slowly  first 
one  poem  was  taken  from  him  and  then  another 
until  all  but  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  had  been 
denied  him,  when  a  period  of  credulity  followed 
that  lasted  until  Wolf  took  up  the  work  which 
had  so  long  lain  dormant.  Wolf  then  is  a  kindred 
spirit  with  the  great  literary  leaders  of  the  Age 
of  Pericles.  The  exact  reverse,  however,  is  the 
true  story,  for  not  a  single  verse,  not  a  single 
poem  of  the  Epic  Cycle  was  definitely  quoted 
as  the  work  of  Homer  until  after  the  death  of 
Aristotle.  The  few  verses  gathered  by  Allen 
under  the  heading  Versus  Heroici,  which  are 
assigned  to  Homer  and  yet  are  not  in  the  Iliad 
or  the  Odyssey,  are  adaptations  or  misquota- 
tions of  verses  in  the  Vulgate.  It  cannot  be  too 
strongly  emphasized  that  such  quotations  are  to 
be  treated  with  the  very  greatest  caution,  for  even 
the  best  writers  when  they  are   exercising  the 


HOMER  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  GREEKS  37 

greatest  care  make  serious  mistakes.  I  wish  to 
add  two  illustrations  to  those  already  given: 
When  Macaulay  wrote  for  the  Edinburgh  Review 
a  review  of  Gleig's  Warren  Hastings  he  referred 
with  great  scorn  to  the  literary  inferiority  of  The 
Vicar  of  Wakefield,  yet  thought  he  had  said  The 
History  of  Greece.  And  he  could  never  explain 
how  he  had  written  one  thing  when  he  believed 
he  had  written  another.  The  most  remarkable 
error  of  this  sort  with  which  I  am  familiar  is 
Moore's  quotation  of  Byron's  Don  Juan,  IV,  4  as 
the  words  of  Shakespeare,  after  he  had  already 
correctly  quoted  them  in  his  own  Life  of  Byron.9 
The  first  poem  to  be  clearly  assigned  to  Homer 
by  a  reliable  author,  except  the  two  great  epics, 
is  the  Hymn  to  Apollo,  which  is  quoted  as  Homeric 
by  Thucydides  (in,  104).  The  Margites,  a  lam- 
poon or  literary  caricature,  was  regarded  as 
Homeric  by  Aristotle,  who  was  probably  voicing 
an  inherited  tradition,  although  the  evidence  that 
Archilochus  and  Aristophanes  regarded  this  poem 
as  Homeric  is  extremely  weak.  The  first  poems 
to  be  attached  to  the  author  of  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey  were  these  little  poems  of  unknown 
origin,  then  others  were  assigned  to  that  great 
name  until,  in  the  intellectual  darkness  which  fol- 
lowed, Homer  was  regarded  as  the  source  of  all 
early  poetry.  A  comparison  of  the  poems  listed 
as  Homeric  by  Xenophon,  Plato,  and  Aristotle 
with  those  so  given  by  Suidas  will  show  which 

s  Table  Talk  of  Samuel  Eogers,  London,  1903,  223. 


38  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

way  the  current  was  running,  and  will  clearly 
indicate  whether  poems  were  being  taken  from 
or  added  to  the  name  of  Homer.  We  cannot 
by  taking  the  ignorant  assertions  of  these  late 
writers  and  by  setting  aside  the  explicit  state- 
ments of  the  ablest  thinkers  of  Alexandria  and 
of  Athens  arrive  at  earlier  truth.  Suidas,  Tzetzes, 
and  Aelian  are  not  such  safe  witnesses  for  Hellas 
of  the  fifth  century  as  are  Isocrates,  Xenophon, 
Plato,  and  Aristotle. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF 

With  Aristotle  the  works  of  creative  genius 
for  the  most  part  ceased,  and  the  year  of  his 
death,  322  B.C.,  closed  that  long  and  brilliant  era 
which  is  commonly  known  as  Classical  Greece. 
Xot  a  trace  of  proof  has  ever  been  found  that 
during  the  classical  period  anyone  questioned  the 
unity  of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  or  that  they 
were  both  the  work  of  one  poet,  and  that  poet, 
Homer.  During  the  following  years  the  Greeks 
lost  their  independence  and  by  reason  of  their  lack 
of  political  power  and  of  the  productive  influence 
which  that  power  called  forth,  they  turned  either 
to  problems  of  scholarship  or  to  the  exercise  of 
their  great  talents  for  subtle  argumentation. 
One  of  these  subtle  exercises  of  the  power  to 
reason  was  the  attempt  to  prove  that  the  Iliad 
and  the  Odvssev  were  by  different  authors.    Thev 

www  * 

seem  to  have  made  no  effort  to  find  who  these 
authors  were,  but  to  have  been  satisfied  in  pro- 
ducing arguments  for  diversity.  Whether  these  ' 
arguments  were  meant  seriously  or  were  simply 
an  attempt  to  apply  to  Homer  that  vaunted  skill 
of  proving  either  side  of  any  question  we  do 
not  know.     But  the  greatest  of  the  Alexandrian 


40  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

scholars,  Aristarchus,  wrote  replies  which  he 
named  Answers  to  the  paradox  of  Xenon,  as  if  he 
regarded  the  so-called  chorizontic  arguments  as 
merely  sophistic  attempts  to  prove  the  improb- 
able or  the  impossible. 

These  arguments  seem  to  have  been  regarded 
solely  as  an  exercise  in  argumentation  and  they 
were  without  any  known  effect  on  the  study  of 
Homer.  Seneca  Be  Brev.  Vitae  13,  refers  to  that 
vice  clinging  to  the  Greeks  of  questioning,  "How 
many  men  did  Ulysses  have!"  "Which  was 
written  earlier,  the  Iliad  or  the  Odyssey  V9  "Did 
the  same  poet  write  both  poems V9  Lucian,  the 
leading  Greek  writer  of  the  second  century  of  our 
era,  imagines  that  he  had  been  admitted  into  the 
sacred  presence  of  Homer,  whom  he  questioned  in 
regard  to  the  disputed  facts  of  the  poet's  life  and 
writings.  Lucian  learns  from  the  poet  himself 
his  origin,  and  the  reason  for  beginning  his  poem 
with  the  Wrath;  learns  that  the  verses  rejected 
by  the  Alexandrians  are  genuine,  and  that  the 
Iliad  was  written  before  the  Odyssey,  and  from 
observation  he  saw  that  the  poet  had  not  been 
blind.1  There  is  no  reference  in  Lucian  to  any 
doubts  cast  on  the  authorship  of  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey.  The  author  of  the  piece  of  literary  criti- 
cism, Be  Sublimit  ate,  formerly  supposed  to  be 
Longinus,  in  an  elaborate  discussion  of  the  char- 
acteristics of  Homeric  poetry  gives  no  trace  of 
any  opinion  which  assigns  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey  to  different  authors. 

1  Lucian,  Vera  Eistoria  n,  20. 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  41 

The  entire  lack  of  any  following  and  also  the 
fact  that  the  separatist  arguments  were  called 
paradoxes  by  Aristarclms  and  referred  to  by 
Seneca  as  an  example  of  that  Greek  perversity 
in  seeking  absurd  themes  for  arguing,  as  well  as 
the  silences  of  Lucian  and  Longinus,  convince  me 
that  the  so-called  chorizontic  movement  of  the 
early  Alexandrian  period  was  simply  a  piece 
of  argumentation,  an  exercise  in  dialectics,  and 
had  nothing  in  common  with  literary  criticism. 
Except  for  this  utterly  vain  and  ineffectual  para- 
doxical reasoning  of  Xenon  and  Hellanicus  we 
hear  of  no  arguments  advanced  by  either  Greek 
or  Latin  writers  to  show  that  Homer  was  not  the 
creator  of  both  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey. 

Others  may  have  anticipated  him  in  many  or 
in  all  of  his  theories,  but  the  Homeric  Question 
was  definitely  and  scientifically  launched  by  Fried- 
rich  August  Wolf  in  his  famous  Prolegomena, 
Volumen  I,  published  in  1795,  the  influence  of 
which  has  permeated  all  fields  of  classical  and 
Biblical  literature.  Two  circumstances  have  con- 
tributed to  the  great  importance  of  this  work  of 
Wolf:  first,  it  came  at  a  time  when  the  French 
Eevolution  had  filled  the  earth  with  general 
skepticism  and  with  distrust  in  inherited  beliefs 
and  existing  institutions.  Everything  went  into 
the  caldron  of  doubt.  The  leaders  in  this  move- 
ment, with  its  glorification  of  the  common  man, 
the  mass,  felt  called  upon  to  challenge  the  claims 
of   genius    and   to   assert   that   what    had   been 


42  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

regarded  as  the  work  of  the  superman  was,  in  fact, 
the  production  of  the  people,  the  fruit  of  whose 
achievements  had  been  wrested  from  them.  The 
Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  were  but  folk-poetry,  the 
poetic  expression  of  the  entire  people,  and  not 
the  creation  of  any  single  superior  genius.  Marx, 
under  the  same  spell,  later  argued  that  all  wealth 
is  produced  by  labor,  by  the  common  man,  and 
that  a  few  have  taken  to  themselves  or  exploited 
the  work  of  the  many;  so  in  a  somewhat  similar 
way  it  was  assumed  that  epic  poetry  was  the  pro- 
duction of  the  entire  people  and  that  a  real  or 
hypothetical  Homer  had  exploited  the  people  of 
its  poetry. 

The  second  reason  contributing  to  the  enor- 
mous popularity  of  the  Homeric  Question  lies  in 
the  fact  that  for  about  a  century  and  a  quarter 
certain  types  of  universities  and  certain  types  of 
scholarship  have  dominated  the  learning  of  the 
world.  In  these  universities  promotions  have 
generally  been  in  exact  ratio  to  the  number  of 
pages  of  articles,  pamphlets,  or  books  published. 
It  has  almost  been  an  actionable  offense  to  say  of 
a  professor,  "He  is  an  inspiring  teacher/'  which 
would  be  like  saying  of  a  woman,  ' '  She  has  a  good 
heart''  or  "She  means  well."  The  real  praise 
is  to  say  of  him,  "He  is  a  productive  scholar,"  a 
"productive  scholar"  being  one  who  publishes  a 
certain  number  of  pages  per  year,  pages  which 
are  always  counted  and  are  rarely  weighed.  The 
Homeric  Question  furnished  inexhaustible  mater- 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  43 

ial  for  numberless  pages ;  you  did  not  need  to  read 
what  others  had  written,  since  you  could  always 
create  a  new  theory  of  your  own.  You  did  not 
even  need  to  read  Homer.  All  you  needed  was 
paper,  ink,  and  audacity.  Here  anyone  could  be 
a  millionaire  and  required  no  capital  to  start  in 
business.  The  field  was  unlimited,  you  could 
either  discuss  what  Homer  had  said,  or,  if  you 
did  not  care  to  read  Homer,  you  could  write  a 
book  on  what  he  should  have  said.  Wilamowitz, 
the  most  radical  of  critics,  practically  throws 
away  all  the  present  Iliad  and  reconstructs  a  new 
Iliad,  "an  Iliad  worthy  of  a  great  poet."  The 
immense  popularity  of  the  Homeric  Question  has 
largely  consisted  in  the  fact  that  it  put  no  re- 
straint on  imaginative  or  creative  and  productive 
scholarship.  It  did  not  demand  as  a  prerequisite 
a  knowledge  of  the  thing  discussed,  for  one  could 
always  escape  the  charge  of  ignorance  of  Homer 
by  pointing  out  that  the  verses  quoted  against 
him  had  been  rejected  by  a  whole  set  of  critics. 
As  every  verse  in  Homer  has  been  pronounced 
late  by  some  high  authority,  the  answer  was 
always  ready  and  always  complete.  If  the  ques- 
tion of  Homeric  authorship  were  as  settled  as 
that  of  Sophocles  or  Milton,  then  a  real  knowledge 
of  the  subject  must  precede  all  articles  or  books 
on  Homer  and  the  field  would  thus  be  immeasur- 
ably reduced. 

The  main  argument   advanced  by  Wolf  for 
doubting  the  unity  of  the  Iliad  rested   on  the 


44  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

assumption  that  writing  was  unknown  at  the  time 
the  Iliad  originated,  or  so  little  known  that  it 
could  not  be  used  for  literary  purposes,  and  with- 
out writing  Wolf  regarded  it  as  impossible  that 
a  poem  of  such  bulk  as  the  Iliad  should  either 
have  been  composed  or  preserved.  He  argued 
also  that  even  if  poems  of  the  size  of  the  Iliad 
and  the  Odyssey  had  been  composed  there  would 
have  been  no  occasion  for  their  delivery,  since  no 
audience  could  have  been  found  willing  or  capable 
of  listening  to  poems  of  such  magnitude.  He 
assumed  that  the  Iliad  must  have  been  composed 
of  a  mass  of  songs,  more  or  less  independent, 
songs  undergoing  constant  alterations  until  they 
were  collected  into  one  poem  under  the  orders  of 
Peisistratus,  who  appointed  a  commission  for  that 
purpose.  Homer  by  this  process  was  eliminated 
and,  whoever  may  have  composed  the  different 
songs,  the  Iliad  itself  is  a  learned  creation 
mechanically  put  together  about  the  middle  of 
the  sixth  century  b.c.  That  great  argument  of 
Wolf  in  regard  to  writing,  around  which  the 
Homeric  Question  so  long  revolved,  has  now  been 
abandoned,  so  that  it  is  hardly  worth  the  effort 
to  storm  a  position  which  has  long  been  deserted 
and  which  no  one  today  would  care  to  defend. 

The  second  argument  was  that,  even  if  such 
poems  had  been  composed,  their  bulk  would  be  so 
great  that  they  could  not  be  recited,  and  also  there 
could  have  been  no  occasion  for  their  delivery. 
It  was  not  necessary  that  either  poem  be  repeated 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  45 

entire  at  one  time.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
many  of  our  best  literary  productions  appeared 
in  serial  form  in  magazines  having  only  monthly 
or  quarterly  issues.  It  is  quite  as  easy  to  suppose 
that  an  audience  could  receive  the  Iliad  in  install- 
ments as  it  could  a  Sartor  Resartus  or  a  Vanity 
Fair.  We  must  not  forget,  however,  that  there  is 
one  great  difference  between  an  ancient  and  a 
modern  audience  and  that  is  the  immense  diver- 
sity of  the  claims  on  the  modern  reader  in  com- 
parison with  the  ancient  hearer.  We  know  that 
the  Greeks  would  assemble  from  dawn  to  dark 
for  several  consecutive  days  in  order  that  they 
might  listen  with  rapture  to  the  productions  of 
a  dramatic  festival.  It  is  very  doubtful  if  this 
long  literary  festival  of  the  drama  was  a  complete 
innovation.  The  conservative  Greek  may  well 
have  followed,  in  listening  to  Aeschylus,  Sopho- 
cles, and  the  other  dramatic  poets,  the  same  habit 
which  had  for  ages  made  him  familiar  with 
literary  recitals  covering  several  days.  During 
the  last  three  days  of  the  City  Dionysia  in  Athens 
nine  tragedies,  three  satyric  plays,  and  at  least 
three  comedies  were  presented,  or  not  less  than 
fifteen  dramas,  hence  at  least  five  on  each  day. 
Some  of  the  existing  dramas  contain  over  seven- 
teen hundred  verses,  but  the  average  is  not  far 
from  fourteen  hundred.  Each  day,  therefore, 
would  see  about  seven  thousand  verses  presented 
by  actor  or  chorus.  In  all  the  plays  the  move- 
ments of  the  chorus,  the  pauses  in  action,  and 


46  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

the  dramatic  silences  no  doubt  so  prolonged 
the  time  of  delivery  that  these  seven  thousand 
dramatic  verses  must  have  occupied  as  much  time 
as  would  be  taken  by  ten  thousand  epic  verses, 
recited  by  single  bards.  It  is  therefore  clear  that 
the  last  three  days  of  the  City  Dionysia  involved 
quite  as  much  strain  on  the  hearer  as  did  the 
recital  of  the  entire  Iliad  and  Odyssey.  But  the 
last  three  days  of  the  City  Dionysia  followed 
another  day  or  days  just  as  strenuous,  since  the 
dramas  came  after  the  audience  had  already 
listened  to  ten  dithyrambic  choruses.2  Even  Greek 
tragedy  had  no  such  grasp  on  the  Greek  mind 
and  Greek  enthusiasm  as  that  held  by  Homer,  so 
that  it  is  far  easier  to  picture  them  listening  to 
the  entire  Iliad  and  Odyssey  than  to  fifteen  or 
more  dramas  in  three  consecutive  days.  The 
assumption,  then,  that  there  was  no  occasion  on 
which  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  could  have  been 
presented  collapses  under  the  consideration  of  the 
undoubted  facts  of  Greek  dramatic  production. 

The  final  argument  was  that  these  poems  took 
on  their  epic  form  in  Athens  under  the  leadership 
of  Peisistratus,  hence  the  theory  that  under  this 
despot  not  only  were  the  detached  poems  of 
Homer  united  into  epic  wholes,  but  changes  were 
made  in  the  text  to  glorify  Athens  and  Peisis- 
tratus himself.  These  will  be  discussed  in  reverse 
order,  first,  the  probability  that  interpolations 
were  made  in  the  interest  of  Athens,  and,  second, 

2  Flickinger,  The  Greek  Theater  and  Its  Drama,  196  ff. 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  47 

the  part  taken  by  Athens  and  Peisistratus  in  the 
creation  or  preservation  of  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey. 

The  first  writer  to  refer  to  interpolations  in 
the  interest  of  Athens  is  Diogenes  Laertius,  a 
writer  presumably  of  the  second  century  of  our 
era,  who  in  his  Life  of  Solon,  chap.  48,  says:  "It 
is  reported  that  Solon  wrote  in  the  Catalogue 
the  verse  which  makes  Ajax  draw  up  his  ships 
next  to  the  Athenians."  In  chapter  57  this  same 
Diogenes  Laertius  gives  Dieuchidas,  a  writer  of 
Megara,  as  the  source  for  this  statement.  Tradi- 
tion varies  between  Solon  and  Peisistratus  as  the 
forger  of  that  verse,  but  the  theory  of  Athenian 
interpolation  is  not  supported  by  any  good  early 
literarv  or  historical  authority.  It  rests  chieflv 
on  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  poems  them- 
selves. -  We  have  all  the  facts  a  Megarian  or  a 
Diogenes  Laertius  had  and  we  can  test  for  our- 
selves the  probability  of  interpolations  in  the 
interest  of  Athens. 

Attica  and  Athens  must  have  existed  long 
before  Homer.  Excavations  show  that  in  the 
vicinity  of  Athens  was  an  important  center  of 
Mycenaean  culture,  so  that  any  poem  dealing  in 
a  large  way  with  a  general  expedition  undertaken 
by  the  Greeks  of  that  age  must  assign  a  part, 
presumably  a  large  part,  to  Athens. 

How  prominent  in  Homer  are  the  warriors 
from  this  Mvcenaean  center?  In  the  first  book 
of  the  Iliad  the  poet  introduces  Achilles,  Aga- 


48 


THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


memnon,  Ajax,  Idomeneus,  Menelaus,  Nestor, 
Odysseus,  and  Patroclus;  and  Diomede  appears 
early  in  the  second  book.  It  is  not  until  the 
Catalogue  of  the  Ships  that  a  single  Athenian  is 
named,  and  then  only  in  a  sort  of  geographical 
survey,  where  the  poet,  having  described  the 
forces  from  Bceotia  and  the  intervening  or  adjoin- 
ing regions,  passes  to  Athens  and  to  Salamis,  then 
on  to  Argos  and  to  Tiryns.  The  bitterest  enemy 
of  Athens  could  hardly  have  omitted  Attica  in 
this  general  survey.  Athens  is  there  represented 
by  a  single  leader,  Menestheus,  a  leader  in  whom 
the  Athenians  took  no  pride,  so  little  pride  indeed 
that  Euripides,  when  telling  the  story,  despite 
Homer,  substituted  another  leader,  whose  memory 
would  arouse  the  interest  and  the  enthusiasm  of 
his  own  countrymen.3 

This  Menestheus  next  appears  in  A  338,  when 
Agamemnon  sternly  rebukes  him  for  his  listless 
inactivity  in  a  time  of  danger,  while  Menestheus 
in  silence  listens  to  the  reproof.  His  next  appear- 
ance is  at  M  331,  when,  terrified  by  the  approach 
of  the  Lycian  leaders,  he  sends  for  the  help  of 
Ajax,  who  comes  and  rescues  him.  It  seems  odd 
that  the  Athenians,  who  are  assumed  to  have  laid 
claim  to  the  island  of  Salamis  because  of  their 
relations  with  Ajax,  should  have  either  interpo- 
lated or  preserved  these  verses  in  which  their  own 
timid  champion  was  rescued  by  the  leader  of  the 
very  island  over  which  they  claimed  control.  Why 

3  Iph.  in  Aulis,  247. 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OP  WOLF  49 

did  they  not  reverse  it,  and  have  Ajax  rescued  by 
Menestheus?  They  could  then  support  their  own 
claim  by  an  epic  obligation.  In  N  685  is  pictured 
the  failure  of  Menestheus  and  his  men  to  keep 
Hector  from  the  ships,  and  in  0  329  Menestheus 
is  utterly  unable  to  save  Stichius,  an  Athenian, 
from  Hector,  and  Iasus,  also  an  Athenian,  from 
Aeneas.  Menestheus  is  not  mentioned  again  in 
Homer,  not  even  reappearing  at  the  final  review 
of  the  Greeks  to  take  part  in  the  games  held 
in  honor  of  Patroclus.  These  three  generals, 
Stichius,  Iasus,  and  Menestheus,  are  the  sole 
representatives  of  Athens  named  in  Homer,  the 
first  two  being  introduced  only  to  be  slain,  and 
having  no  voice  nor  part  in  the  poem.  Menes- 
theus, the  Athenian  leader,  is  never  consulted,  is 
spoken  to  but  once,  and  then  in  severest  rebuke, 
speaks  but  a  single  time  and  that  in  a  plea  for 
help,  sees  his  companions  fall  at  his  side,  helpless 
to  save  them,  does  no  act  of  valor,  however  slight, 
and  passes  from  notice  early  in  the  course  of 
the  poem.  If  such  a  hero  was  created  to  exalt 
Athenian  pride,  then  that  pride  was  easily  exalted 
and  easily  satisfied. 

The  verses  selected  as  proof  of  forgery  in  the 
interest  of  Athens  are  B  557  f.,  "Ajax  brought 
twelve  ships  from  Salamis  and  bringing  them 
moored  them  where  the  hosts  of  the  Athenians 
stood.' '  The  second  verse  is  referred  to  as  if 
genuine  by  Aristotle  (Rhet.  i,  15),  but  Megarian 
sources    claimed   it   was   a   forgery   inserted   to 


50  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

decide  or  strengthen  the  claims  of  the  Athenians 
to  the  island  of  Salamis  in  their  contest  with 
Megara.  Zenodotus  and  Aristarchus  appear  to 
have  passed  in  silence  the  charge  of  Athenian 
interpolation,  even  though  they  did  not  admit 
this  verse  into  their  text. 

Homer  consistently  keeps  Ajax  near  the 
Athenians ;  Menestheus  and  his  men  were  rescued 
by  Ajax  from  the  Lycians  in  M  339  if.  In  the 
fierce  fight  between  Hector  and  Ajax  (N  185  if.), 
Amphimachus  is  slain,  and  his  body  is  rescued  and 
carried  back  to  the  line  of  the  Achaeans  by  two 
Athenians,  Menestheus  and  Stichius.  These  same 
Athenians  (N  865  if.)  try  in  vain  to  restrain  Hec- 
tor in  his  attack  on  Ajax.  In  the  great  struggle 
between  Ajax  and  Hector  (0  329  if.),  Stichius  and 
Iasus,  the  two  Athenian  companions  of  Menes- 
theus, are  slain.  Once  only  is  Menestheus  appar- 
ently away  from  Ajax,  and  that  is  in  the  review 
of  the  army  made  by  the  king  in  A,  where  Agamem- 
non upbraids  him  and  Odysseus,  but  soon  after 
(A  489)  Antiphus  hurls  at  Ajax,  misses  him,  and 
hits  a  companion  of  Odysseus;  now  Menestheus 
and  Odysseus  entered  the  fight  as  companions, 
hence  even  here  Ajax  was  fighting  near  the 
Athenians,  and  Ajax,  Odysseus,  and  Menestheus 
must  have  stood  close  together. 

This  hidden  proof  of  the  intimate  relations 
existing  between  Ajax  and  the  Athenians  can  not 
be  due  to  an  interpolator,  but  must  come  from 
the  original  poet.     This   subtle  harmony  is  not 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF   WOLF  51 

an  addition,  it  is  the  hidden  harmony  of  the 
whole.  The  poet  who  wrote  the  suspected  line 
had  the  same  idea  whenever  he  referred  to  Ajax 
and  the  Athenians. 

This  suspected  verse  is  the  only  one  in  the 
Iliad  which  gives  a  home  to  Ajax,  and  it  seems 
most  unlikely  that  this  mighty  chieftain,  second 
only  to  Achilles,  should  be  a  warrior  without  a 
home  and  without  a  country.  It  has  long  been 
observed  that  most  of  the  Homeric  heroes  moved 
to  and  from  the  battle  in  a  chariot,  but  sweating 
Ajax,  loaded  with  his  ponderous  shield,  moved 
always  on  foot  and  had  neither  a  driver  nor  a 
chariot.  This  trait  he  shared  with  Odvsseus,  who 
came  from  the  little  island  of  Ithaca,  and  it  is  fair 
evidence  that  he,  too,  came  from  some  island 
too  small  to  train  its  inhabitants  in  the  use  of 
the  chariot.  This  small  island  is  named  in  the 
suspected  verse  and  in  none  other  in  the  Iliad. 
Inasmuch  as  Ajax  is  homeless  without  this  verse, 
since  the  absence  of  a  chariot  marks  him  as  an 
islander,  since  he  is  regularly  near  the  Athenians, 
and  since  Aristotle  refers  without  questioning  to 
this  verse  as  Homeric,  I  regard  it  as  genuine  and 
as  a  part  of  the  original  conception  of  the  Iliad. 

The  references  to  Athens  in  the  Odvssev  are 
few  and  vague,  never  joined  to  any  praise  of  that 
city :  once  Sunium  is  named  as  the  promontory  of 
Athens ;  once  Odysseus  tells  how  he  saw  Ariadne 
whom  Artemis  slew  as  she  was  going  from  Crete 
to  Athens;  once  it  is  said  that  Orestes  returned 


%^ 


52  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

from  Athens  to  slay  the  murderer  of  his  father; 
and  once  it  is  said  that  Athena  came  to  Marathon 
and  Athens  of  wide  streets.  These  are  all  the 
direct  references  to  Athens  in  the  Odyssey.  But 
two  of  them  are  highly  significant,  for  the  simple 
statement  that  " Orestes  returned  from  Athens' ' 
is  at  complete  variance  with  Athenian  tradition, 
since  it  was  one  of  the  commonplaces  of  the  Attic 
traditions  that  Orestes  came  from  Phocis.  If 
Athenian  pride  inserted  Athens  here  in  Homer, 
why  did  that  same  pride  retain  Phocis  in  tragedy  ? 
If  Athens  ever  controlled  Homeric  tradition,  why 
was  the  word  Athens  not  changed  to  Phocis? 
The  answer  seems  simple :  The  word  was  in  Homer 
in  spite  of  Athenian  traditions,  and  no  one  in 
Athens  had  power  to  change  it.  The  other  sig- 
nificant passage  is  y\  80,  where  it  is  said  that 
"Athena  left  Scheria  and  came  to  Marathon  and 
to  Athens.' '  This  has  been  regarded  as  the  sure 
proof  of  tampering  with  the  text  of  Homer,  and 
Seeck,  who  sees  many  defects  on  many  pages  of 
Homer,  says : ' '  That  the  goddess  should  have  come 
from  Phaeacia,  that  is  from  the  west,  and  pass  over 
the  east  coast  of  Attica  before  coming  to  Athens  is 
highly  unreasonable.  If  the  poet  in  spite  of  this 
names  Marathon,  it  could  only  be  from  personal 
grounds.  In  all  probability  Marathon  was  his 
home."4  The  last  sentence  he  puts  in  italics. 
That  is  to  say,  the  poem  contains  a  serious 
blunder  in  the  matter  of  the  geography  of  Athens, 

4  Seeck,  Quellen  der  Od.,  335. 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  53 

a  blunder  self-evident  to  any  Athenian,  hence  the 
passage  must  have  been  due  to  an  inhabitant  of 
Attica,  an  inhabitant  who  knew  better,  so  that 
he  might  delight  his  own  fellow-countrymen,  who 
also  knew  better.  This  very  inaccuracy  shows 
that  the  verses  were  composed  by  a  poet  with  only 
a  vague  idea  of  the  relative  positions  of  Athens 
and  Marathon,  composed  also  for  an  audience 
with  the  same  indefinite  ideas.  Homer  had  no 
maps  or  charts  before  him  and  would  be  expected 
to  have  this  indefinite  grasp  of  direction  in  regard 
to  lands  somewhat  remote.  This  vagueness  is  of 
a  piece  with  the  belief  of  Nestor  that  birds  of 
passage  could  not  cross  the  Mediterranean  in  a 
single  year  (y  321)  or  the  statement  of  Menelaus 
that  Pharos  is  a  long  day's  sail  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Xile  (S  355).  Also,  in  general  connection 
with  the  influence  of  Athens  on  Homeric  poetry, 
the  fact  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  word 
Athens  is  found  in  but  a  single  passage  in  the 
Iliad  and  that  in  the  general  geographical  survey 
of  the  Catalogue. 

It  has  been  a  common  presumption  of  the 
critics  that  the  men  who  collected  or  created  the 
Iliad  and  the  Odvssev  for  Peisistratus  added  to 
the  Odyssey  a  son  of  Nestor,  whom  they  named 
Peisistratus  in  order  to  flatter  the  tyrant.  This 
youthful  Peisistratus  is  one  of  the  least  important 
actors  of  the  poem.  He  was  created  to  accompany 
Telemachus  to  Sparta,  and  when  that  is  done  he  is 
completely  ignored.     After  he   and   Telemachus 


7 


54  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

part  company  (o  215),  he  is  forgotten,  even  his 
companion  does  not  bid  him  any  farewells,  for 
he  simply  leaves  him.  The  poet  makes  no  men- 
tion of  his  reception  by  his  father,  and  he  does 
not  allow  him  to  tell  the  story  of  the  trip  to 
Sparta.  The  significant  fact,  however,  is  that 
when  Telemachus  narrates  to  his  mother  the  tale 
of  that  journey  he  never  mentions  Peisistratus 
nor  refers  to  him  in  any  way ;  clear  proof  that  he 
was  a  person  in  whom  the  poet  and  the  hearer  had 
only  a  secondary  interest.  Such  a  character  is 
the  creation  of  the  original  poet  and  has  no  marks 
of  the  flatterer,  for  there  is  nothing  in  it  to  flatter 
anyone,  certainly  not  the  tyrant  of  Athens. 

The  positive  proofs  that  the  Homeric  poems 
were  never  under  Attic  control  are  many.  In 
Homer  Oedipus  died  in  Thebes  (W  679),  although 
one  of  the  greatest  plays  of  Sophocles  is  founded 
on  the  story  of  his  death  in  Colonus,  a  suburb  of 
Athens;  Tydeus  was  buried  in  Thebes  (H  114), 
yet  the  Athenians  prided  themselves  on  his  burial 
at  Eleusis;  Philomela  is  the  daughter  of  Pan- 
dareus  (t  518),  not  of  the  Athenian  Pandion; 
Hecuba  is  the  daughter  of  Dymas  (II  718),  but 
in  Attic  traditions  she  was  the  daughter  of 
Cisseus ;  Orestes  returns  to  his  home  from  Athens 
(y  307),  not  from  Phocis;  Agamemnon's  daugh- 
ters have  names  utterly  unlike  the  names  given 
them  by  the  Athenians  (I  145).  How  easily  an 
Athenian  could  have  substituted  the  Attic  Iphi- 
geneia  for  the  Homeric  Iphianassa!     The  hero 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  55 

of  the  Odyssey  reappears  as  the  villain  of  Attic 
tragedy ;  the  kindly,  gentle  host  and  friend,  Mene- 
laus,  becomes  almost  inhuman;  and  Minos,  the 
Cretan  tyrant,  who  demanded  the  annual  sacrifice 
of  fourteen  Athenian  youths  to  the  Minotaur,  is,  in 
Homer,  the  wise  judge,  the  friend  and  companion 
of  Zeus.  It  is  beyond  belief  that  the  Athenians 
ever  had  such  control  of  these  poems  as  to  insert 
Peisistratus  into  the  story  of  the  Odyssey  and  to 
reshape  them  at  will,  yet  never  took  the  pains  to 
rewrite  these  traditions  which  could  have  been 
so  easily  changed.  To  see  how  an  Athenian  who 
reallv  had  a  free  hand  dealt  with  Homeric  tradi- 
tions,  we  need  only  turn  to  Euripides,  who,  in  his 
Iphigeneia  in  Aulis,  substituted  another  leader 
for  Homer's  Menestheus  and,  in  spite  of  the 
definite  number  of  fifty  ships  named  in  the  Cata- 
logue, increased  the  Athenian  contingent  to  sixty, 
while  Argos  is  made  inferior  by  reducing  its  ships 
from  eighty  to  fifty.  The  internal  evidence  fur- 
nishes no  proof  that  any  changes  were  made  in 
the  text  of  Homer  in  the  interest  of  Athens. 
Moreover,  if  Athens  had  absolute  control  of  these 
poems,  the  failure  to  bring  them  into  harmony 
with  Athenian  pride  and  Athenian  traditions  is 
one  of  the  most  inexplicable  things  in  literature. 
What  external  proofs  are  there  that  Athens 
or  Peisistratus  ever  controlled  this  poetry?  The 
story  of  Peisistratus  and  Homer  seems  to  have 
originated  in  the  hostile  state  of  Megara,  where 
political  enmity  sought  to  console  itself  by  claim- 


56  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

ing  it  had  lost  by  fraud  what  it  could  not  gain 
by  force.  No  admirer  of  Peisistratus  has  been 
able  to  show  that  any  intellectual  life  was  called 
into  being  by  him  or  by  his  sons.  It  is  true  that 
Onomacritus  was  detected  in  forging  a  prophecy 
for  these  superstitious  despots,  and  Herodotus 
tells  of  their  great  interest  in  signs,  omens,  and 
oracles,  but  neither  he  nor  any  early  writer  gives 
the  slightest  indication  that  any  creative  intellect- 
ual or  literary  impulse  came  from  that  family. 
The  Peisistratidae  might  have  had  the  wealth  to 
employ  and  the  taste  to  appreciate  the  praises 
or  the  songs  of  an  Anacreon  or  a  Simonides,  but 
the  literary  barrenness  of  Athens  during  their 
lives  and  during  the  years  immediately  following 
gives  no  indication  that  they  furnished  any  stim- 
ulus to  literary  activity.  The  story  that  Peisis- 
tratus founded  a  great  library  and  was  the  patron 
of  letters  seems  pure  fiction,  for  Aristotle  in  his 
recently  discovered  Athenian  Constitution,  chap. 
16,  describes  in  great  detail  the  work  done  by 
Peisistratus,  his  criminal  laws,  and  the  fact  that 
he  recognized  therein  extenuating  circumstances, 
his  efforts  to  assist  the  poor  farmers,  and  also 
his  democratic  and  philanthropic  spirit,  but  he 
makes  no  reference  to  his  library  or  to  his  literary 
pursuits.  When  we  consider  Aristotle's  immense 
enthusiasm  for  literature  and  for  the  gathering 
of  books,  we  are  certain  that  he  would  never 
have  passed  over  in  silence  the  great  intellectual 
achievements  which  the  advocates  of  Peisistratus 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  57 

as  the  creator  of  Homer  so  confidently  assume. 
No  writer,  whose  works  have  survived,  connects 
Peisistratus  with  Homer  until  Cicero,  and  Cicero 
lived  almost  five  hundred  years  after  the  time  of 
Peisistratus.  No  later  writer  adds  any  detail 
which  proves  a  new  source  of  knowledge,  hence 
the  multiplication  of  the  names  of  later  writers 
referring  to  Peisistratus  adds  no  strength  to  the 
argument. 

There  is  not  to  be  found  in  Herodotus,  Plato, 
Aristotle,  nor  in  any  early  Athenian  writer  a  ref- 
erence connecting  the  tyrant  with  Homer,  nor  is 
there  a  single  allusion  in  all  the  great  mass  of 
learning  referred  to  the  scholars  of  Alexandria. 
Wolf's  statement  that  the  united  voice  of  all  an- 
tiquity consistently  assigned  to  Peisistratus  the 
honor  of  collecting,  arranging,  and  putting  into 
writing  the  poetry  of  Homer  looks  dangerously 
near  intentional  deception.  Even  more  to  the 
point  is  the  fact  that  Herodotus  says  the  Athen- 
ians used  that  passage  in  the  Catalogue,  which  is 
now  most  suspected,  to  explain  their  unwillingness 
to  yield  the  command  of  the  fleet,  at  the  time  of 
the  invasion  of  Xerxes,  to  any  but  Sparta,  and  he 
makes  no  comment.  No  one  familiar  with  the 
method  of  Herodotus  could  suppose  that  he  knew 
the  Athenians  were  using  a  forged  passage  and 
yet  concealed  that  knowledge.  Again,  when  he  de- 
scribed Onomacritus  as  one  who  had  been  exiled 
for  interpolating  a  verse  into  the  poetry  of 
Musaeus,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that 


58  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

he  would  have  added  that  formerly  this  Onoma- 
critus  had  been  intrusted  by  Peisistratus  with  the 
task  of  collecting  the  poetry  of  Homer  and  he  had 
also  added  verses  thereto.  It  is  incredible  that 
a  public  sentiment  which  exiled  a  man  for  inter- 
polating a  verse  in  so  insignificant  a  poem  as  that 
of  Musaeus  should  have  been  indifferent  to  whole- 
sale additions  to  the  almost  sacred  poetry  of 
Homer. 

In  regard  to  the  Megarian  charge  that  the 
Spartan  arbitrators  were  tricked  in  awarding 
Salamis  to  Athens  because  of  an  interpolated 
verse,  one  of  two  things  is  true :  either  the  poetry 
of  Homer  was  well-known  at  that  time  or  it  was 
not.  If  well-known,  an  interpolation  would  have 
been  immediately  detected ;  and  if  it  was  not  well- 
known,  it  would  not  have  been  accepted  as  the 
ultimate  authority.  In  all  the  attacks  made  later 
on  Athenian  duplicity,  no  Spartan  ever  complains 
of  this  deception,  and  no  Athenian  is  ever  quoted 
as  defending  a  proposed  injustice  by  referring 
to  this  clever  imposture  of  the  fathers. 

There  is  no  evidence  for  this  Homeric  recen- 
sion under  the  supervision  of  Peisistratus  but  the 
evidence  of  probabilities.  What  are  the  probabili- 
ties that  in  the  second  half  of  the  sixth  century 
Homer  came  so  completely  under  the  control  of 
Athens  that  in  a  few  years  Athenian  legates  at 
Syracuse  could  quote  Athenian  interpolations  as 
genuine  and  neither  the  speakers  betray  nor  the 
hearers    suspect    that    the    quoted    verses    were 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  59 

spurious?  In  order  to  compel  this  complete  and 
rapid  acceptance  the  Athenians  must  have  had  a 
unique  and  commanding  position  both  in  govern- 
ment and  in  literature,  so  that  all  Hellas  would 
without  questioning  regard  them  as  leaders.  But 
just  the  opposite  is  true,  for  in  the  years  immedi- 
ately following  the  fall  of  the  family  of  Peisistra- 
tus,  Athens  was  unable  to  settle  her  own  domestic 
affairs  without  the  help  or  intervention  of  Sparta, 
and  in  480,  ten  years  after  Marathon,  Athens 
accepted  her  own  inferiority  as  an  established 
fact  and  yielded  to  Sparta  the  right  to  command 
both  the  naval  and  land  forces  in  the  struggle  with 
Xerxes.  Weak  as  Athens  was  in  a  military  and 
political  sense  in  the  years  before  the  Persian 
"Wars,  her  literarv  fame  was  even  more  feeble. 
It  is  hard  for  us,  with  the  glory  of  the  fifth  and 
fourth  centuries  in  our  minds,  to  grasp  how  far 
Athens  lay  outside  the  currents  of  literature  until 
the  rise  of  the  drama.  The  Muses  were  connected 
with  Helicon,  Olympia,  and  Pieria,  but  there  was 
no  mount  of  the  Muses  in  Attica.  Such  early 
fabled  bards  as  Linus,  Thamyris,  and  Musaeus 
were  from  other  parts  of  Greece.  No  poem  of  the 
Epic  Cycle  was  ever  assigned  to  an  Attic  poet  and 
we  are  told  that  Hesiod  of  Bceotia,  Peisander  of 
Ehodes,  Panvasis  of  Samos  or  of  Halicarnassus, 
and  Antimachus  of  Colophon  were  regarded  as  the 
greatest  epic  poets  after  Homer.  Xo  Athenian  in 
that  list !  Peisistratus  lived  in  the  age  of  the  lyric 
poets,  yet  not  one  of  all  the  illustrious  nine  lyric 


60  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

poets  was  born  in  Athens.  What  district  adjacent 
to  the  Aegean  Sea  was  so  destitute  of  literary  fame 
as  Attica  in  500  b.c?  If  poetry  was  to  be  recited 
at  the  great  festivals,  the  Athenians  were  obliged 
to  adopt  the  works  of  a  foreign  poet,  who  sang  the 
praises  of  rival  nations,  and  if  a  living  poet  was 
desired,  it  was  necessary  to  send  abroad  for  an 
Anacreon  or  a  Simonides.  It  could  not  have  been 
either  the  political  or  literary  position  of  Athens 
which  compelled  an  early  acceptance  of  an  Attic 
version  of  Homer.  Schools  of  Homeric  enthusi- 
asts flourished  before  the  time  of  Peisistratus  in 
many  cities  of  Ionia  and  in  the  islands  of  the 
Aegean,  from  which  a  knowledge  of  Homer  radi- 
ated to  all  parts  of  the  Greek  world.  We  have  a 
long  list  of  the  names  of  those  who  busied  them- 
selves with  investigations  in  regard  to  Homer 
and  Homeric  poetry,  but  not  one  of  these  early 
investigators  was  from  Athens.  Homeric  poetry 
must  have  been  known  throughout  Greece  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  since  it  seems  to 
be  assumed  as  the  setting  or  background  for  most 
of  the  earliest  poetry.  The  exact  condition  of 
that  age  has  been  pictured  by  Xenophanes  of 
Colophon,  an  early  and  a  competent  authority, 
born  at  about  the  time  of  the  usurpation  of  Peisis- 
tratus, and  therefore  trained  in  Ionia  in  the  ver- 
sion then  current,  before  any  recension  by  the 
tyrant  was  possible.  He  regarded  the  familiarity 
with  Homer  as  universal,  something  all  had 
known  from  earliest  childhood.    This  Xenophanes 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  61 

was  much  offended  by  the  immorality  of  the 
Homeric  gods  and  severely  criticised  the  poet  for 
his  descriptions  of  divine  baseness.  To  him 
Hiero,  the  tyrant  of  Syracuse,  is  assumed  to  have 
replied,  "This  Homer  whom  you  revile,  although 
dead,  continues  to  support  ten  thousand  servants, 
while  you  with  difficulty  can  maintain  but  two." 
Even  if  this  story  be  apocryphal,  it  gives  some 
indication  of  the  great  popularity  of  Homeric 
poetry.  We  know  that  the  recitation  of  Homeric 
poetry  was  early  established  as  a  custom  in 
Sicyon,  for  Cleisthenes  in  jealousy  of  Argos  for- 
bade the  Homeric  bards  the  privilege  of  public 
recital.  This  expulsion  of  these  bards  must  have 
been  at  least  a  generation  before  Peisistratus 
could  have  revised  the  poems. 

The  entire  Greek  world  at  that  time  regarded 
Homer  as  its  teacher  and  its  prophet.  Was  that 
world  likely  to  exchange  the  Homer  it  knew  for 
a  strange  and  interpolated  Homer?  The  Greeks 
were  always  a  conservative  people,  extremely 
tenacious  of  old  customs  and  of  old  institutions, 
so  that  epic  poetry  continued  to  be  composed  for 
more  than  a  thousand  years  in  the  verse  and  dia- 
lect of  Homer ;  Tyrtaeus,  the  great  Lacedaemonian 
war  poet,  might  compose  his  fiery  anapaests  in 
the  native  dialect  of  Sparta,  but  when  he  used 
dactyls,  he  must  show  their  Ionic  origin ;  and  even 
an  Athenian  dramatist,  when  composing  for  an 
Athenian  audience,  felt  it  necessary  to  give  a 
foreign  color  to  his  choral  songs,  since  they  must 


62  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

show  their  alien  birth.  This  persistent  conserva- 
tism of  the  Athenians,  despite  the  ruin  brought 
by  Persian  fire  and  devastation,  repeatedly  ham- 
pered Pericles  in  his  plans  for  beautifying  the 
Acropolis,  and  this  conservatism  gave  to  the 
Amphictyonic  Council  that  power  which  was  made 
in  the  hands  of  Philip  so  disastrous  to  the  liberty 
of  Greece.5 

This  conservatism  is  the  very  breath  of  Greece 
and  still  survives.  In  November,  1901,  the  public 
use  of  a  revised  text  of  the  Bible  led  to  a  bloody 
riot  in  which  eight  persons  were  slain,  the  min- 
istry overthrown,  and  the  Metropolitan  forced 
to  flee;  and  in  1903  an  attempt  to  produce  in 
the  theater  a  play  of  Aeschylus  in  modernized 
speech  led  to  a  riot.  In  view  of  this  Hellenic 
trait  it  seems  incredible  that  Homeric  bards  and 
scholars  should  abandon  the  Homer  thev  knew 
and  without  a  murmur  accept  the  interpolated 
edition  of  a  state  so  obscure  intellectually  and 
politically  as  Athens  was  at  the  end  of  the  sixth 
century.  This  Peisistratean  theory  involves  not 
only  their  acceptance  of  this  Athenian  Homer,  but 
their  silent  acceptance  as  well,  since  no  writer  has 
ever  mentioned  any  struggle  as  arising  from  the 
change. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  there  never  was 
in  historical  times  anything  resembling  a  united 
Greece.    Even  in  the  Persian  Wars  many  of  the 

5  A  fuller  discussion  of  Athenian  influence  on  the  text  of 
Homer,  with  reference  to  the  recent  literature,  has  been  published 
in  Class.  Phil.  VI,  419  ff .  and  IX,  395  ff. 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OP'  WOLF  G3 

Greek  states  joined  the  foe,  and  in  such  patriotic 
states  as  Athens  there  seems  to  have  been  a  pro- 
Persian  party.  There  never  was  a  united  Greece 
and  there  never  was  any  body  of  men  who  formed 
a  literary  Academy  or  Sanhedrin,  competent  and 
authorized  to  pass  on  questions  of  poetry  and 
revisions  of  text ;  so  that  even  if  Peisistratus  had 
revised  Homer  there  was  no  power  in  Greece  to 
bring  about  its  unquestioned  acceptance.  The 
most  improbable  thing  in  regard  to  this  theory  is 
that  Greek  bards  would  all  have  accepted  a  new 
version  in  absolute  silence  and  no  one  would  have 
raised  his  voice  in  protest. 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  fact 
that  Onomacritus  was  banished  in  the  time  of 
Peisistratus  for  adding  a  verse  to  the  poetry  of 
Musaeus,  and  in  a  later  age  Lycon,  the  comic  actor 
and  friend  of  Alexander,  was  fined  the  enormous 
sum  of  ten  talents  for  interpolating  a  single  line 
in  a  comedv,  a  fine  which  would  have  ruined  him 
had  it  not  been  paid  by  Alexander.6  A  public 
sentiment  which  would  not  tolerate  these  trifling 
changes  in  minor  authors  never  grew  up  among 
a  people  accustomed  to  wholesale  changes  in  the 
almost  sacred  text  of  Homer. 

The  great  scholars  of  Alexandria  never  re- 
ferred to  the  work  of  Peisistratus,  and  although 
they  quote  manuscripts  of  Homer  which  came 
from  Sinope,  Crete,  Cyprus,  Chios,  Marseilles, 
and  the  most  diverse  parts  of  Greece,  they  never 

6  Flickinger,  op.  cit.,  191. 


64  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

mention  a  manuscript  as  coming  from  Athens. 
Equally  significant  is  the  fact  that  no  one  of  the 
great  Homeric  scholars  was  a  native  of  Attica. 
The  knowledge  of  Homer  in  an  age  before  a 
reading  public  was  possible  must  for  the  most 
part  have  been  carried  from  place  to  place  by 
reciters  or  rhapsodes.  Therefore,  if  an  Athenian 
version  of  the  sixth  century  was  to  take  the  place 
of  an  earlier  version,  it  must  have  been  carried 
to  favor  by  rhapsodes  from  Athens.  Yet  we  have 
no  knowledge  of  any  such  Athenian  reciters.  The 
classical  description  of  these  wandering  Homeric 
evangelists  is  given  by  Plato  in  his  Ion.  From 
this  we  learn  that  even  in  Athens  that  famous 
reciter  was  from  Ephesus,  and  those  especially 
renowned  for  their  appreciation  and  interpreta- 
tion of  Homer  were  Metrodorus  of  Lampsacus, 
Stesimbrotus  of  Thasos,  and  Glaucon,  apparently 
from  Rhegium;  yet  if  Homer  were  really  "The 
Gift  of  Athens,' '  as  Professor  Gilbert  Murray 
asserts,  it  seems  too  much  to  believe  that  Ionian 
bards  would  come  to  Athens,  exchange  their 
Homer  for  a  new  version,  but  never  make  a  refer- 
ence to  that  fact.  In  Athens  nearly  all  forms 
of  Greek  art  and  literature  reached  their  perfec- 
tion. The  Ionic  and  Doric  columns  originated 
elsewhere,  but  the  best  of  each  has  been  found  at 
Athens;  philosophy  had  its  birth  in  Ionia,  but 
the  greatest  philosophers  were  Socrates,  Plato, 
and  Aristotle;  histories  also  were  first  written 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  65 

on  the  eastern  shores  of  the  Aegean,  but  the 
greatest  history  was  the  work  of  Thucydid* 
Ehetoric,  oratory,  comedy,  and  tragedy  originated 
outside  of  Attica,  but  all  reached  their  zenith 
there.  The  epic  alone  of  all  the  early  forms  of 
literature  seems  never  to  have  stirred  the  creative 
genius  of  Attica — no  Athenian  has  ever  been  men- 
tioned who  gained  distinction  by  the  creation  of 
epic  poetry.  It  is  evident  that  Athens  lay  outside 
those  movements  which  created  and  preserved  the 
epic  treatment  of  heroic  tales. 

How  did  the  tradition  in  regard  to  Peisistratus 
arise  ?  Athens  in  common  with  other  Greek  states 
had  public  recitations  of  Homeric  poetry,  and 
somehow  a  regulation  came  into  force  forbidding 
the  reciter  to  cull  out  the  portions  which  would 
win  the  greatest  favor,  and  commanding  him  to 
follow  the  established  order  of  the  poems;  that 
is,  a  bard  could  not  recite  the  "  Parting  of  Hector 
and  Andromache, ' '  then  follow  it  with  the  ' '  Death 
of  Hector, ' '  since  all  the  advantage  would  be  with 
the  bard  who  recited  first.  The  first  bard  must 
recite  the  poem  in  its  accepted  order,  and  the 
second  bard  must  take  up  the  story  where  the 
first  had  left  off.  The  very  fact  that  such  decrees 
could  be  deemed  necessary  shows  that  there  was 
even  then  an  established  sequence,  for  discon- 
nected songs  could  have  no  regular  order.  The 
scholiast  to  Pindar  (N.  n,  2)  says:  "The  poetry 
of  Homer  being  delivered  in  portions  formerly, 


66  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

each  of  the  contestants  recited  whatever  part  he 
wished.' '  Thus  this  simple  regulation  was  in- 
tended to  give  each  contestant  a  fair  chance  by 
prohibiting  the  early  contenders  from  selecting 
all  the  choicest  portions.  This  is  the  "scattered 
songs  of  Homer,' '  which  has  given  rise  to  the 
myth  of  Peisistratus  as  the  preserver  of  the 
Homeric  songs  and  the  creator  of  the  Homeric 
epics.  The  theory  that  the  Homer  recited  at  the 
Great  Panathenaic  Festival  included  all  the  great 
mass  of  early  poetry,  is  utterly  discredited  by  the 
words  of  the  orator  Lycurgus  (chap.  26):  "Our 
fathers  forbade  the  recitation  of  any  other  poetry 
than  that  of  Homer"  and  by  the  clear  statement 
of  Isocrates  that  Homer's  greatness  in  the  eyes 
of  the  fathers  consisted  in  the  fact  that  he  pic- 
tured the  Greeks  not  as  fighting  each  other  but 
the  barbarians  (Panegyricus  159). 

The  theory  that  men  who  never  wrote  a  great 
line  of  poetry  could  with  scissors  and  paste  create 
the  two  greatest  poems  of  the  world  shows  the 
fathomless  depths  of  human  credulity.  Bentley, 
England's  foremost  scholar  and  most  famous 
critic,  has  in  his  edition  of  Milton  given  for  all 
time  the  classic  example  of  the  huge  chasm  be- 
tween pure  erudition  and  high  poetry.  Two 
quotations  from  this  edition  of  Bentley  will  illus- 
trate. 

No  light,  but  rather  darkness  visible 
Served  only  to  discover  sights  of  woe. 

—Milton  P.  L.  I,  63  f . 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  67 

To  the  learned  and  reasoning  brain  of  Bentley 
" darkness  visible"  was  a  monstrosity,  so  he  made 
sense  by  changing  it  thus : 

No  light,  but  rather  a  transpicuous  gloom. 

And 

Our  torments  also  may,  in  length  of  time, 
Become  our  elements. 

—P.  L.  II,  274. 

This  becomes  under  the  learned  touch  of  Bentley : 

Thus,  as  was  well-observed,  our  torments  may 
Become  our  elements. 

It  seems  incredible  that  any  one  could  have  sug- 
gested the  prose  phrase  "as  was  well-observed" 
as  an  improvement  of  Milton. 

The  constant  assumption  made  by  all  the 
critics  that  meaningless  or  contradictory  scenes 
were  added  to  the  poems  has  never  presented  any 
satisfactory  grounds  for  explaining  why  a  people 
of  the  acute  literarv  sense  of  the  Greeks  would 
accept  these  postulated  blunders.  Two  things  are 
necessary  for  such  interpolations:  first,  stupid 
bards,  and,  second,  stupid  audiences.  Theognis 
in  the  beginning  of  his  poem  says :  "  Xo  one  will 
accept  the  worse,  when  the  better  is  present." 
But  this  interpolation  theory  just  reverses  that 
and  proclaims:  "No  one  will  keep  the  better, 
when  the  worse  is  present" — not  only  keep  the 
worse,  but  cast  out  and  forget  the  better.  I  wish 
Wilamowitz  or  some  other  prophet  of  the  gospel 
of  the  better  Iliad  destroved  to  make  room  for 


68  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

the  inferior  would  illustrate  by  concrete  examples 
where  the  Greeks  destroyed  the  good  to  make  way 
for  the  bad.  They  might  remove  the  inferior  to 
put  in  its  place  the  better  or  the  perfect,  but  where 
have  they  admitted  the  bad  when  the  good  was 
at  hand?  An  artistic  sense  which  demanded  the 
literary  finish  of  the  Pindaric  odes,  which  called 
into  being  the  dramas  of  Sophocles,  and  made 
Demosthenes  strive  for  the  very  perfection  of 
oratorical  expression,  was  the  public  sentiment 
which  the  critics  assume  quietly  accepted  interpo- 
lations that  defaced  the  most  cherished  of  all  their 
possessions,  the  poetry  of  Homer. 

Not  only  were  no  changes  made  in  the  text  of 
Homer  by  Peisistratus,  but  no  one  before  him  or 
after  him  has  succeeded  in  materially  altering  the 
Homeric  text.  No  two  persons  could  copy  the 
same  words  in  exactly  the  same  way,  lines  from 
memory  would  slip  in,  others  would  drop  out,  but 
no  passage  so  extended  as  ten  verses  has  been 
lost  from  or  added  to  the  poetry  of  Homer.  Also 
the  language  of  the  present  Vulgate  is  essentially 
the  same  as  that  in  which  the  poems  were  orig- 
inally composed.  All  quotations  made  from 
Homer  are  in  virtually  the  same  dialect  as  that 
found  in  the  existing  manuscripts,  and,  whatever 
the  native  speech  of  the  writer,  the  language  of 
Homer  was  not  changed  into  that  speech ;  Herodo- 
tus of  Halicarnassus,  Plato  of  Athens,  Timaeus 
of  Sicily,  Plutarch  of  Bceotia,  and  Strabo  of 
Pontus,  all  quote  Homer  in  the  same  dialect,  with 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  69 

no  attempt  to  change  his  speech  into  their  own 
vernacular.  These  men  could  paraphrase  Homer, 
each  in  his  own  speech,  but  when  quoting  him  as 
poetry,  the  language  or  dialect  of  the  poem 
remained  Homeric. 

There  is  one  proof  that  there  never  was  any 
serious  or  conscious  attempt  to  modernize  the 
poetry  of  Homer  which  more  than  answers  all 
contrary  arguments,  and  that  is  the  evidence  of 
the  lost  letter,  the  consonant  digamma.  We  know 
since  the  time  of  Bentley  that  the  poetry  of  Homer 
in  all  parts  of  the  poems  made  use  of  a  letter 
which  was  early  lost  in  Ionic  Greek7  and  which 
never  appeared  in  Attic  literature,  and  in  gen- 
eral was  unsuspected  by  the  bards  or  scholars  to 
whom  we  owe  the  preservation  of  the  poems  of 
Homer.  The  loss  of  this  letter  caused  apparent 
anarchy  in  the  Homeric  meter  and  seemingly  per- 
mitted a  word  ending  in  a  short  vowel  to  be  fol- 
lowed by  an  initial  vowel,  the  forbidden  hiatus, 
or  permitted  a  short  vowel  to  be  scanned  as  long 
before  a  single  consonant.  The  restoration  to 
Homer  of  this  lost  consonant  is  regarded  as  one 
of  the  greatest  feats  of  modern  scholarship. 

These  apparent  metrical  defects  were  the  de- 
spair of  Homeric  editors  and  greatly  discounted 
the  fame  of  the  poet  until  Bentley  proved  that 
nearly  all  these  defects  could  be  righted  on  the 
theory  that  this  consonant,  which  survived  longer 

7  Smyth,  Greek  Dialects,  389:  "The  sound  of  digamma  was 
practically  dead  in  Asia  Minor  at  least  by  the  year  700  B.C.  and 
in  Attika  by  the  commencement  of  the  sixth  century. ' ' 


70  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

in  other  dialects,  had  been  lost  out  of  the  poems 
since  their  creation.  It  was  very  easy  to  insert 
the  digamma  in  most  cases,  and  no  scholar  now 
doubts  that  this  letter  belonged  to  the  early 
Homeric  alphabet,  whether  that  letter  was  writ- 
ten, or  simply  understood  from  the  familiarity  of 
the  hearers  with  its  sound. 

It  would  have  been  easy  indeed  for  the  pre- 
servers of  Homer  to  have  obliterated  all  traces 
of  this  metrical  difficulty  by  the  slightest  bits  of 
emendation,  some  so  easy  that  we  can  hardly 
understand  why  they  preserved  this  hiatus  when 
the  application  of  the  rudimentary  principles  of 
the  Greek  language  would  have  removed  it.  A 
simple  rule  of  Ionic- Attic  Greek  is  that  the  nega- 
tive ov  becomes  ovk  or  ov%  before  an  initial  vowel, 
yet  we  have  ov  e6ev  (A  114.  Ludwich  in  a  critical 
note  to  this  reading  adds  the  significant  words 
"ofy  meorum  nullus."),  o(J  of,  B  392,  E  53,  S  141, 
0  496,  P  153,  T  124,  Y  349,  X  219,  a  262,  0  175,  v  417, 
o  355.  Another  simple  rule  concerns  words  ending 
in  epsilon  and  a  nu-movable  before  a  word  begin- 
ning with  a  vowel,  something  akin  to  the  English 
use  of  the  indefinite  article  a  or  an ;  but  Homer  has 
tti  ol  (Z  281,  I  157),  and  often  tci  i  (1 155).  It  is 
remarkable  that  such  an  ill-sounding  combination 
should  be  preserved  in  any  manuscript.  Sale  ol 
(E  4)  is  preserved  in  practically  all  manuscripts, 
and  even  the  difficult  combination  ov  i  (Q  214)  is 
preserved  in  many  manuscripts.  In  all  these 
examples  corrections  made  on  the  simplest  prin- 


THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  WOLF  71 

ciples  of  Greek  euphony  would  have  removed 
every  difficulty  and  would  have  obliterated  all 
traces  of  the  digamraa. 

The  fact  that  these  changes  were  not  made 
shows  that  the  language  of  Homer  was  a  thing 
apart.  They  might  paraphrase  the  poem  into  their 
own  speech;  they  might  even  add  an  alternate 
verse  to  each  verse  of  the  original;  they  might 
parody  it  at  will;  yet  the  text  itself  was  sacred 
and  kept  unchanged.  A  certain  amount  of  change 
would  seem  inevitable,  but  Athenaeus,  about 
200  a.d.,  Eustathius,  about  1200  a.d.,  quote  Homer 
in  the  same  dialect  in  which  he  was  quoted  by 
Herodotus,  Plato,  and  Aristotle,  showing  that 
during  this  interval  of  sixteen  hundred  years  no 
changes  of  any  moment  had  taken  place  in  the 
text  of  Homer.  And  the  fact  that  manuscripts 
have  preserved  the  unmetrical  ov  k6ev,  ov  o/,  hale  ot, 
ice  e,  after  the  knowledge  of  digamma  had  vanished 
and  when  easy  corrections  were  almost  obligatory, 
carries  its  own  proof  that  those  who  would  not 
make  these  simple  alterations  never  subjected 
Homer  to  the  violent  changes  assumed  by  all  the 
radical  school. 

Had  the  Homeric  scholars  of  more  than  two 
thousand  years  ago  been  as  reckless  with  the 
inherited  text  of  Homer  as  many  modern  editors, 
they  would  have  so  completely  obliterated  all 
traces  of  digamma  that  not  even  a  Bentley  could 
have  suspected  its  existence.  The  undoubted  fact 
that  the  Greeks  who  edited  or  preserved  the  text 


72  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

of  Homer  kept  alive  the  proofs  of  a  lost  letter, 
a  letter  they  did  not  comprehend,  and  preferred 
to  hand  on  a  text  which  seemed  full  of  metrical 
errors  rather  than  to  apply  simple  and  uniform 
laws  of  phonetics  of  their  own  language,  convinces 
me  that  they  have  made  no  changes  of  a  more 
difficult  and  intricate  character,  and  that  those 
who  have  so  faithfully  preserved  for  posterity 
this  old  and  unused  digamma  can  be  trusted  to 
have  honestly  conserved  the  text  of  Homer  in 
those  places  where  change  would  have  been  dif- 
ficult to  make  and  easy  to  detect.  Men  who  will 
not  swallow  gnats  may  safely  be  trusted  with 
camels.8 

s  I  wish  to  acknowledge  my  great  indebtedness  to  Professors 
Ludwich  and  Allen  for  much  of  the  material  used  above.  This 
indebtedness  is  specified  in  my  two  articles  on  '  *  Athenian  Interpo- 
lations in  Homer"   (Class.  Phil,  VI,  419,  and  IX,  395). 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS 

The  forces  set  in  motion  by  the  arguments  of 
Wolf  had  immediate  and  far-reaching  influence, 
but  it  is  highly  significant  that  few  German  or 
English  writers  who  have  an  independent  literary 
reputation,  apart  from  scholarship,  have  been 
permanently  convinced  that  the  poetry  of  Homer 
could  have  been  created  except  by  a  single  person. 
Goethe,  who  began  to  write  about  the  poetry  of 
Homer  as  early  as  1766,  or  nearly  thirty  years 
before  the  work  by  Wolf  appeared,  was  swept 
off  his  feet  by  the  seeming  authority  and  broad 
learning  there  displayed.  He  accepted  what  was 
declared  to  be  the  united  historical  testimony 
of  antiquity  and,  although  he  was  slow  to  give 
up  his  belief  in  a  single  Homer,  expressed  him- 
self as  relieved  of  the  danger  of  challenging  com- 
parison in  his  own  works  with  the  great  Homer, 
for  now  he  could  hope  to  rival  one  of  the  group 
who  wrote  the  Iliad  and  the  Odvssev,  even  if  he 
could  not  the  undivided  Homer.  In  his  Hermann 
und  Dorothea,  294  ff.,  he  rejoices  that  now  he  is 
not  called  upon  to  contend  with  gods,  since  there 
is  no  longer  a  single  Homer.  However,  as  he 
became   more   and   more   steeped   in   the   poetry 


74  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

of  Homer,  he  became  once  more  convinced  of 
Homeric  unity,  in  spite  of  the  historical  proofs 
advanced  by  Wolf,  and  at  that  time  unanswered; 
and  he  referred  to  Wolf  as  a  beast  of  prey,  Raub- 
getier,  who  had  wounded  and  despoiled  him.  In 
1827  he  wrote  his  final  opinion  on  Homer  as  fol- 
lows: "  Homer  is  a  noble  unity  and  the  poems 
handed  down  under  his  name  could  have  sprung 
only  from  one  mighty  genius. m 

Schiller  reread  his  Homer  at  the  appearance 
of  the  Prolegomena  and  wrote  to  Goethe  that  he 
had  actually  been  swimming  in  a  sea  of  poetry; 
and  later  he  referred  to  Wolf's  theory  as  bar- 
baric. Wieland  still  adhered  to  a  single  Homer, 
and  Voss,  ignorant  of  the  weakness  of  the  his- 
torical arguments  so  boldly  advanced,  wrote  to 
Wolf :  ' '  In  spite  of  all  I  still  believe  in  one  Iliad, 
in  one  Odyssey,  and  in  one  Homer  as  the  sole 
father  of  them  both. ' '  In  the  face  of  what  seemed 
unanswerable  proofs  drawn  from  language,  his- 
tory, and  archaeology,  such  eminent  critics  as 
De  Quincey,  Shelley,  Matthew  Arnold,  and  Andrew 
Lang  have  stoutly  upheld,  on  poetic  grounds  alone, 
the  unity  of  the  Homeric  poems.  The  fact  that 
these  men  of  letters  felt  the  poetic  necessity  for 
unity,  even  though  all  other  arguments  seemed 
adverse,  is  a  matter  of  the  very  greatest  impor- 
tance. In  the  long  run  it  will  be  seen  that,  when 
the  matter  at  issue  is  purely  one  of  poetry,  no  man 

i  All  references  to  Goethe  are  based  on  W.  J.  Keller,  ' '  Goethe 's 
Estimate  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Writers,"  University  of  Wis- 
consin Bulletin,  No.  786. 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS  75 

in  Germany  was  so  competent  a  judge  as  Ger- 
many's greatest  poet;  and  I  am  not  likely  to  be 
worried  by  defects  the  grammarians  discover 
when  Goethe  and  Schiller  could  not  find  them. 

"Wolf's  Prolegomena  was  called  by  him  Volume 
One.  In  it  he  presented  the  external,  the  his- 
torical proofs,  and  reserved  for  Volume  Two 
the  internal  proofs  of  diverse  authorship.  Voss 
wrote  to  him  and  urged  him  to  hasten  the  second 
volume,  using  these  words : 

Grant  that  Homer  could  not  write  his  own  name, 
and  so  much  will  I  concede  that  your  arguments  have 
almost  demonstrated,  still  to  my  thinking  that  only 
enhances  the  glory  of  the  poet.  The  unity  of  the  poet, 
and  the  unity  of  his  works,  are  to  me  unshaken  ideas. 
But  what  then?  I  am  no  bigot  in  my  creed,  so  as  to 
close  my  ears  against  all  arguments,  and  these  argu- 
ments, let  me  say  plainly,  you  now  owe  to  us  all, 
arguments  drawn  from  the  internal  structure  of  the 
Homeric  poems.  You  have  wounded  us,  Mr.  Wolf,  in 
our  affections,  you  have  affronted  us,  Mr.  Wolf,  in  our 
tenderest  sensibilities.  But  still  we  are  just  men,  ready 
to  listen,  willing  to  hear  and  forbear.  Meanwhile  the 
matter  cannot  rest  here.  You  owe  it,  Mr.  Wolf,  to  the 
dignity  of  the  subject,  not  to  keep  back  those  proofs 
which  doubtless  you  possess,  proofs,  observe,  conclusive 
proofs. 

Although  Wolf  lived  twenty-nine  years  of  active 
life  after  the  appearance  of  Volume  One,  Volume 
Two  never  appeared,  and  nothing  resembling  it 
was  found  among  his  unpublished  papers. 

WTolf  never  attempted  to  furnish  those  internal 
proofs  of  diverse  authorship.  That  task  has  been 
the  chief  occupation  of  most  of  his  followers,  and 


76  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

in  their  own  minds  they  have  brought  forth 
such  overwhelming  evidence  of  contradictions  and 
absurdities,  such  diversities  of  language,  meter, 
customs,  and  civilization  that  the  Homeric  Ques- 
tion has  been  completely  reversed.  The  doubt 
whether  one  genius  could  have  created  such 
wealth  of  poetry  has  become  the  assurance  that 
no  one  man  could  be  responsible  for  so  many 
absurdities.  It  is  no  longer  the  envy  of  a  Goethe 
which  begrudges  the  awarding  of  so  much  glory 
to  a  single  Homer,  but  the  magnanimity  of  a 
Wilamowitz  which  acquits  him  of  the  crime. 
Fick,  with  righteous  indignation,  exclaims :  ' '  The 
present  Odyssey  is  a  crime  against  human  intelli- 
gence. "2  Muelder  with  a  touch  of  sadness  re- 
marks: "It  is  really  too  bad  that  the  poet  of  the 
Odyssey  tried  his  powers  in  a  species  of  poetry 
for  which  he  had  neither  the  creative  ability  nor 
the  powers  of  expression."3  And  Wilamowitz, 
convinced  that  no  great  poem  could  be  produced 
by  a  group  of  men,  devotes  his  energies  to 
attempting  to  prove  that  Homer  is  but  wretched 
poetry,  and  he  scorns  the  "fanatics,  defenders  of 
unity,  who  admire  the  divine  Homer."4  The  Iliad 
is  a  "miserable  piece  of  patchwork,"  ein  ubles 
Flicktverk.5     He  regrets  that  most  of  the  really 

2  Die  Entstehung  der  Odyssee,  168. 

3  Hermes  28,  448.  ' 1  Es  ist  eigentlich  schade  dass  er  seine 
Gestaltungskraft  in  den  Dienst  einer  Dichtart  gestellt  hat,  deren 
stoffliche  Voraussetzungen  und  deren  Ausdrucksmittel  er  auch  nicht 
annahernd  beherrschte. ' ' 

4  Die  Ilias  und  Homer. 
s  Idem,  322. 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ABGUMENTS  77 

great  scenes  of  Homer,  scenes  he  could  so  easily 
supply,  have  yielded  to  miserable  and  impossible 
pieces  of  poetic  absurdity. 

If  Fick,  Muelder,  Wilamowitz,  and  the  rest 
have  won,  they  have  banished  Homer,  and  with 
him  all  the  literature  of  Greece  and  Rome  as  well. 
For  all  their  great  writers  regarded  Homer  as  the 
perfection  of  literature,  they  set  him  up  as  the 
unapproachable,  and  if  they  failed  so  utterly  in 
their  calmest  judgment,  we  can  have  but  little 
interest  in  their  own  productions.  We  have  the 
best  possible  evidence  of  their  own  literary  wis- 
dom in  the  works  they  themselves  produced. 
When  the  age  that  could  inspire  and  create  a 
Plato  and  an  Aristotle  still  regarded  Homer  as 
the  perfection  of  literary  achievement,  I  respect 
the  opinion  of  that  age.  When  Plato  and  Aristotle 
agree  in  regard  to  the  supreme  excellence  of  a 
Greek  writer,  I  shall  not  question  their  judgment. 
If  Milton,  Tennyson,  Matthew  Arnold,  and  Lowell 
have  ever  called  anything  in  English  poetry  per- 
fect, I  shall  not  be  worried  if  some  prosaic  and 
foreign  grammarian  challenges  that  verdict. 

If  Homer  is  forced  into  poetic  bankruptcy, 
then  all  Greece  goes  down  in  the  wreck,  for  Plato, 
with  the  best  of  all  that  Greece  had  produced 
before  him,  called  him  "the  wisest,"  "the  best 
and  most  divine  of  poets,"  "the  poet  wise  in  all 
things,"  "the  most  poetic  and  the  first  of  the 
writers  of  tragedy,"  and  Aristotle  said  of  him, 
"Homer  the  divine  poet  superior  in  all  things  to 


78  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

all  others. "  If  one  declares  a  note  worthless,  that 
worthlessness  includes  not  only  the  signers  but 
the  endorsers  as  well,  and  Homer  is  too  heavily 
endorsed  to  be  the  only  one  involved  in  that  fail- 
ure, for  he  has  the  unlimited  guaranty  not  only 
of  the  greatest  writers  of  Greece,  but  of  Cicero, 
Horace,  Vergil,  Seneca,  and  Quintilian,  the  great- 
est of  Italy;  and  also  of  Goethe  and  Schiller,  the 
greatest  of  Germany.  It  is  hard  to  believe  that 
the  united  opinion  of  the  real  literary  leaders  of 
civilization  is  so  utterly  mistaken.  Not  a  single 
writer  of  early  Greece  ever  detected  one  fault  in 
Homer  as  poetry.  All  the  criticism  leveled  by 
early  philosophers  at  his  poetry  was  aimed  at  the 
representation  of  the  gods.  Even  Plato,  who 
dreaded  the  moral  results  of  a  conception  of  the 
gods  which  made  them  treacherous,  revengeful, 
deceitful,  and  immoral,  still  regarded  Homer  as 
"the  most  divine  of  poets.' ' 

It  seems  strange  in  the  face  of  this  unanimous 
opinion  of  the  really  great  poets  and  writers  of 
all  ages  that  the  disintegrating  arguments  of 
Wolf  and  his  successors  should  have  won  so 
complete  a  victory  that  at  the  beginning  of  this 
century  they  were  practically  alone  in  the  field. 
I  heard  Professor  Seymour  say  in  the  summer 
of  1897,  in  a  lecture  delivered  at  the  University 
of  Chicago,  that  he  knew  of  no  competent  scholar 
who  believed  in  the  unity  of  Homer.  Harper's 
Classical  Dictionary,  published  in  1896,  says  under 
the  word  "Homer":  "Probably  no  one  who  has 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS  79 

a  right  to  an  opinion  on  the  subject  now  hold- 
to  the  unity  of  the  poems."  In  Wright's  History 
of  Greek  Literature,  published  in  1907,  we  read 
on  page  31:  "Time  has  repressed  the  Unitarians 
and  all  scholars  are  now  Separatists."  A  little 
earlier  Huxley  enumerated  in  the  list  of  the 
achievements  of  science  the  fact  that  the  unity 
of  authorship  of  the  Iliad  was  successfully 
assailed  by  scientific  criticism.6  Lachmann,  with 
that  air  of  authority  which  most  of  the  higher 
critics  assume,  wrote:  "Any  one  who  does  not 
comprehend  how  Homer  sprang  from  and  through 
small  songs  will  waste  his  time  in  studying  either 
what  I  write  or  epic  poetry  itself,  for  he  has  not 
the  ability  to  understand  any  part  of  either."7 
Though  the  critics  of  Homer  agreed  that  they 
had  driven  the  one  poet  from  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey,  they  agreed  in  nothing  else,  and  if  there 
was  something  like  peace  where  once  there  had 
been  controversy,  it  wxas  not  the  peace  which 
comes  from  harmony  but  from  the  conviction  that 
nothing  was  left  deserving  a  struggle. 

In  the  last  few  years  five  of  the  champions  of 
Homeric  criticism,  Fick,  Robert,  Muelder,  Bethe, 
and  Wilamowitz  have  set  forth  in  detail  what 
each  regarded  as  the  real  and  original  Iliad. 
Fick  thought  that  the  part  of  the  Iliad  which  was 
really  worth  while  covered  1936  verses,  or  a  trifle 
less  than  one-eighth  of  the  poem.  In  this  better 
and  nobler  Iliad  there  is  no  parting  scene  be- 

6  Shorey,  Americana,  sub  v.  Homer. 

7  Quoted  by  Gerlach,  Philologus,  XXX,  43. 


80  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

tween  Hector  and  Andromache,  none  of  the  great 
speeches  spoken  by  the  ambassadors  and  Achilles 
in  Achilles '  tent,  no  games,  and  nothing  of  that 
most  dramatic  scene  ever  written,  the  scene  be- 
tween Achilles  and  Priam,  when  Priam  obtained 
the  dead  body  of  his  son.  Robert  reconstructed 
his  better  Iliad  out  of  2146  verses,  excluding  the 
famous  scene  on  the  walls  of  Troy  where  Helen 
pointed  out  to  the  aged  Trojans  the  leaders  of 
the  Greeks,  and  oddly  enough  he  excludes  the 
account  of  the  death  of  Hector,  admitting  but 
four  verses  from  that  wonderful  book.  Bethe 
puts  the  true  Iliad  at  about  1300  verses,  or  prac- 
tically one-twelfth  of  the  entire  poem.  Wilam- 
owitz  casts  out  large  portions  of  the  Iliad,  but 
he  regards  T  and  O,  books  absolutely  rejected  by 
Fick,  Robert,  and  Bethe,  as  essentially  original 
and  unchanged.  Wilamowitz  cannot  reconstruct 
an  original  poem  out  of  the  existing  Iliad,  since 
he  regards  the  present  poem  as  for  the  most  part 
the  work  of  blunderers  and  blockheads,  men  who 
removed  the  old  and  the  noble  poetry  and  then 
substituted  inferior  verses  of  their  own  or  of 
others  for  the  great  poetry  of  the  original.  These 
better  parts  were  all  lost  as  soon  as  they  were 
removed,  no  one  has  ever  quoted  or  referred  to 
them,  and  this  greatest  of  all  losses  was  never 
suspected  until  discovered  by  the  great  critic  in 
our  own  day.  Wilamowitz  has  been  able  to  give 
an  outline  of  much  of  the  better  and  nobler  Iliad, 
but  has  modestly  refrained  from  writing  in  full 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ABOUMENT  81 

that  greater  poem  which  he  regards  as  alone 
worthy  the  world's  mightiest  pod.  It  is  well 
to  observe,  however,  that  Homer  has  long  been 
regarded  as  the  greatest  of  all  poets  not  because 
of  the  poem  which  Wilamowitz  imagines,  but 
because  of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  which  we 
actually  have.  Homer's  reputation  depends  on 
no  hypothetical  creation  but  on  poetry  now  exist- 
ing. It  was  because  of  this  poetry  that  a  man  of 
Macaulay's  vision  and  judgment  reached  the  con- 
clusion that  Shakespeare  alone  could  challenge 
comparison  with  Homer.8 

Muelder  disagrees  with  all  the  rest  and  has 
recreated  an  original  Iliad  of  his  own.  He  re- 
gards the  parts  commonly  considered  as  late  as 
being  early  and  the  so-called  early  parts  as  late. 
If  the  critics  have  agreed  in  anything  they  have 
agreed  in  making  the  story  of  Achilles  the  oldest 
parts  of  the  poem,  and  they  have  regarded  the 
exploits  of  other  Greek  heroes  as  the  work  of 
late  bards,  but  Muelder  thinks  the  story  of 
Achilles  the  latest  of  all,  a  sort  of  literary  mortar 
by  which  the  older  parts  are  held  together. 

These  five  men  do  not  agree  in  regard  to  one 
single  verse,  and  every  line  in  Homer  has  been 
rejected  by  at  least  two  of  them.  There  can  be 
no  Homeric  scholarship,  no  literary  appreciation, 
under  such  leadership,  for  Homer  ceases  to  be  a 
poet  and  his  work  poetry,  and  becomes  merely  a 
theory  of  Pick,  of  Eobert,  of  Muelder,  of  Bethe, 

s  Trevelvan,   Life   and   Letters   of   Macaulay,    Harpers,    1876, 
II,  93. 


82  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

of  Wilamowitz,  and  of  the  rest.  It  has  detached 
itself  from  learning  as  well  as  from  poetry,  and 
has  simply  become  a  game  of  blindman's  buff  in 
a  swamp,  in  which  no  one  is  able  to  catch  any- 
thing, and  the  player  has  no  idea  of  what  he  is 
trying  to  catch.  Homer  in  such  hands  will  inspire 
no  more  poetry.  During  more  than  a  century 
Homeric  scholarship  has  devoted  itself  to  the  task 
of  finding  errors,  contradictions,  and  absurdities 
in  both  poems,  so  that  Wilamowitz,  the  last  and 
the  mightiest  of  the  revilers  of  the  Iliad,  in  his 
recent  work  has  used  practically  every  word  and 
form  of  contempt  of  which  the  German  language 
is  capable.  I  notice  the  following  words  of  appre- 
ciation of  the  genius  of  Homer  in  the  few  pages, 
160-170,  of  his  Die  Bias  und  Homer:  erbarmliche, 
unertrdglich,  wie  sehr  sie  gef  alien  hat,  Das  hat 
der  Bearbeiter  nicht  thun  mogen,  herzlich  albem 
und  ganz  zivecklos,  unbehaglich,  Der  Dichter  hat 
recht  fluchtig  gearbeitet.  Yet  Horace  said  of  this 
very  poet,  qui  nil  molitur  inepte.  Too  bad  that 
Horace  could  not  have  taken  a  course  on  literary 
appreciation  under  this  great  critic! 

When  I  began  my  work  as  a  student  of  Homer 
it  was  in  complete  accord  with  the  milder  of  these 
disintegrating  theories,  and  I  had  accepted  for 
my  own  belief  the  theory  of  Jebb,  Leaf,  and 
Christ,  known  as  the  Ur-Ilias,  or  the  Original- 
Iliad  theory,  which  presupposes  an  older  poem  in 
which  one  hero  was  brought  forward,  an  original 
Iliad  of  moderate  compass,  containing  the  exploits 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS  83 

of  Achilles  as  far  as  the  slaying  of  Hector.  To 
this  had  been  added  by  later  hands  most  of  the 
scenes  in  which  Achilles  is  not  a  participant,  as 
well  as  the  scene  with  the  ambassadors  in  I,  the 
games  in  ty,  and  the  ransoming  of  the  body  of 
Hector  in  Q. 

The  books  composing  the  story  of  Achilles 
were  supposed  to  have  certain  well-defined  usages 
of  language,  theology,  and  antiquities  which  sep- 
arated them  from  the  other  books  of  the  Iliad, 
and  these  other  books  of  the  Iliad,  though  differ- 
ing from  the  Achilleis,  shared  these  differences 
with  the  Odyssey.  If  there  was  any  orthodox 
Homeric  opinion  twenty  years  ago,  it  was  that 
the  books  of  the  Achilleis  were  clearly  older  than 
the  rest  of  the  Iliad,  and  that  the  non-Achilleid 
books  of  the  Iliad  furnished  many  evidences  of 
close  affinity  with  the  Odyssey.  These  arguments 
were  supported  by  most  of  the  great  names  of 
classical  scholarship  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  were 
not  seriously  challenged.  Such  a  man  of  letters 
as  Andrew  Lang  doubted  the  conclusions  drawn 
from  these  proofs,  but  the  proofs  themselves  he 
did  not  question. 

The  argument  most  used  to  prove  that  certain 
books  of  the  Iliad  have  peculiar  and  intimate 
connection  with  the  Odyssey  is  the  argument 
from  vocabulary.  The  book  to  which  this  test 
was  most  confidently  applied  was  the  tenth  book 
of  the  Iliad,  the  Doloneia.  It  was  shown  that  this 
tenth  book  has  many  words,  the  number  being 


84  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

seventeen,  which  are  found  in  no  other  book  of 
the  Iliad;  but,  although  found  in  no  other  book 
of  the  Iliad,  they  are  found  in  the  Odyssey.  This 
has  been  the  strong  argument  for  the  assertion 
that  this  tenth  book  of  the  Iliad  is  Odyssean  and 
it  has  been  repeated  in  practically  all  the  adverse 
criticisms  of  this  book. 

Some  years  ago  I  thought  this  argument  might 
be  strengthened  by  extending  a  like  investigation 
to  all  the  books  of  the  Iliad,  for  thus  the  strength 
of  the  connection  between  K  and  the  Odyssey 
might  be  made  more  evident  by  contrast  with  the 
small  number  of  Odyssean  words  found  in  other 
books  of  the  Iliad.  By  Odyssean  words  is  meant 
words  used  in  the  Odyssey  and  in  but  one  book 
of  the  Iliad.  To  my  surprise  I  found  that  A,  one 
of  the  supposedly  old  books,  had  twenty-six  words 
found  only  in  that  book  of  the  Iliad  and  in  the 
Odyssey;  A,  another  presumably  old  book,  had 
thirty-three  such  words;  II  had  also  thirty-three 
Odyssean  words;  and  X,  the  very  heart  of  the 
Achilleis,  actually  had  thirty-four.  That  is,  each 
book  of  the  "original  Iliad"  had  about  twice  as 
many  Odyssean  words  as  K,  yet  for  its  Odyssean 
words  this  book  had  been  exiled  from  the  Iliad. 
It  was  found  that  no  less  than  seventeen  books 
of  the  Iliad  had  more  Odyssean  words  than  the 
Doloneia,  so  that  a  thorough  application  of  the 
arguments  of  the  critics  makes  this  late  book  one 
of  the  oldest  of  the  Iliad.  The  list  of  these  words 
was  published  in  Classical  Philology,  vol.  V,  so 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ABGUMENTS  85 

that  anyone  might  test  them  for  himself,  but  thufl 

far  no  critic  has  tried  to  lwive  or  to  defend  thai 
argument  for  assigning  the  Doloneia  to  the  poet 
of  the  Odyssey,  as  distinct  from  the  poet  of  the 
Iliad.  Each  book  of  the  Odyssey  has  certain  wordfi 
found  only  in  that  book  and  in  the  Iliad,  each  book 
of  the  Iliad  has  certain  words  found  only  in  that 
book  and  in  the  Odyssey.  Each  book  of  the  Iliad 
has  its  own  peculiar  relations  with  the  Odyssey, 
each  book  of  the  Odyssey  its  own  peculiar  rela- 
tions with  the  Iliad,  so  that  the  argument  which 
assigns  the  Doloneia  to  the  poet  of  the  Odyssey 
assigns  each  book  of  the  Iliad  to  that  poet  and 
in  turn  each  book  of  the  Odyssey  to  the  poet  of 
the  Iliad. 

When  the  article  containing  this  list  was  writ- 
ten I  was  so  cowed  by  the  authority  and  the 
assurance  of  .the  critics,  especially  by  such  sen- 
tences as  "No  one  who  has  a  right  to  an  opinion 
believes  in  the  unity  of  Homer,"  that  I  referred 
to  "the  poets  of  the  Iliad,"  not  daring  to  believe 
the  thing  I  felt  was  true,  that  there  was  only  one 
poet  after  all.  The  arguments  were  too  many 
and  too  strong  against  it. 

Another  most  convincing  test  was  the  test 
offered  by  the  use  of  abstract  nouns,  since  it  is 
evident  that  the  adjective  good  must  precede  the 
abstract  goodness,  and  holiness  must  presuppose 
an  earlier  word,  holy.  When  I  restudied  the 
arguments  drawn  from  the  use  of  abstracts  they 
seemed  to  me  so  conclusive  that  I  was  glad  that 


86  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

I  had  not  in  the  article  mentioned  declared  my 
belief  in  a  single  Homer.  This  argument  advanced 
by  Croiset  was  held  by  such  men  as  Van  Leeuwen 
and  Cauer  to  be  unanswerable  and  it  was  the  main 
support  of  Croiset  in  declaring  that  unity  of 
authorship  was  impossible.  In  the  first  edition 
of  his  Histoire  de  la  litterahire  grecque  he  said 
that  the  Iliad  had  but  thirty-nine  abstract  nouns 
in  (y,  ru5,  avvr),  while  the  Odyssey  had  eighty-one. 
This  difference  between  thirty-nine  and  eighty- 
one  could  show  nothing  else  than  the  development 
of  many  generations  and  would  make  unity  of 
authorship  frankly  impossible.  This  argument 
was  seized  upon  by  the  advanced  critics  as  final, 
and  that  decision  could  hardly  be  questioned,  if 
the  facts  offered  by  Croiset9  were  really  facts. 

There  was  no  appeal  except  to  Homer  and,  to 
my  great  surprise,  I  found  the  figures  given  by 
Croiset  for  the  Iliad  must  be  exactly  doubled, 
since  the  Iliad  had  not  thirty-nine  but  really  had 
seventy-eight  of  these  abstracts.  Croiset  simply 
published  his  figures,  he  did  not  name  the 
abstracts  or  where  they  were  found;  but  in  the 
reply  to  his  statistics  each  abstract  was  named 
with  the  book  and  verse  in  which  it  was  found.10 
In  these  years  no  one  has  questioned  the  truth 
of  my  statement  that  the  Iliad  has  seventy-eight 
abstracts,  or  just  twice  the  number  given  by 
Croiset.     Professor  Boiling,  an  unusually  accu- 

9  In  a  later  edition  Croiset  raised  the  number  from  39  to  58. 
io  '  <  The  Eelative  Antiquity  of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  Tested 
by  Abstract  Nouns, ' '  Classical  Review,  XXIV,  8  ff . 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS  87 

rate  scholar,  has  tested  my  figures  with  the  desire 
to  destroy  them,  but  instead  has  confirmed  them. 
He  tries  to  acquit  Croiset  by  assuming  "errorfl 
in  counting,"  "a  moment  of  forgetfulness," 
"haplography  led  to  the  error,"  and  the  cool 
assumption  that  Croiset  meant  only  certain  books 
and  not  the  entire  Iliad,  despite  the  fact  that  he 
permitted  himself  to  be  quoted  by  all  the  critics 
as  comparing  the  entire  Iliad  and  the  entire 
Odyssey,  and  also  despite  the  fact  that  my  article 
was  republished  by  German  and  French  period- 
icals and  Croiset  never  made  anv  such  defense. 
Professor  Boiling  agrees,  however,  in  the  very 
manner  of  his  apology  for  these  errors,  that 
Croiset 's  figures  are  wrong,  that  the  Iliad  has 
not  thirty-nine  but  seventy-eight  abstracts,  and 
that  these  two  poems  show  a  similarity  in  the 
number  of  abstracts  which  can  hardlv  be  ex- 
plained  except  by  unity  of  authorship. 

The  arguments  based  on  the  development  of 
the  abstract  from  the  adjective  and  the  proof  that 
certain  abstracts  appear  only  in  the  Odyssey, 
while  the  adjectives  from  which  they  are  derived 
are  found  in  the  Iliad,  seem  most  convincing. 
Both  poems  are  in  the  same  position  in  this  re- 
gard, and  there  are  many  abstracts  used  only 
in  the  Iliad  which  are  derived  from  adjectives 
found  onlv  in  the  Odvssev.  The  following 
abstracts  are  found  only  in  the  Iliad,  the  adjec- 
tives from  which  thev  are  derived  occur  onlv  in 

the  Odyssey:     r)*-iKLV,    /ivq/xoavi/ri^     Ihpeirj,     Karrj^eirj : 


88  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

and  the  list  might  be  much  extended.  This  shows 
how  impossible  it  is  to  date  a  word  from  its  first 
appearance,  since  the  adjectives  from  which  these 
abstracts  are  derived  must  have  been  known  to 
the  poet  of  the  Iliad.  Croiset  in  his  work  on 
Homer  discussed  certain  obsolescent  phrases, 
saying  that  the  phrase,  i}w?  re  /-teya?  re1  is  found 
in  the  Iliad  twenty-five  times,  in  the  Odyssey  but 
three,  though  in  fact  it  is  found  in  the  Iliad  but 
eight  times,  in  the  Odyssey  but  once.  It  is  almost 
pathetic  to  know  that  Croiset  in  his  long  chapter 
devoted  to  showing  the  linguistic  differences  be- 
tween the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  gave  definite 
figures  but  twice,  and  both  absolutely  wrong,  for 
the  phrase  which  he  said  is  used  in  the  Iliad 
twenty-five  times  is  used  but  eight,  and  the 
abstracts  which  he  said  are  found  in  that  poem 
but  thirty-nine  times  are  found  seventy-eight 
times.  If  both  these  figures  were  too  small,  it 
would  be  an  easy  matter  to  say  that  he  did  not 
count  certain  books  or  certain  verses;  then  just 
enough  could  be  omitted  to  get  the  necessary 
number,  but  when  the  figures  are  in  one  case  too 
small  and  in  the  other  over  three  times  too  large, 
it  is  not  so  easy  to  offer  a  satisfying  solution. 

In  such  matters  the  test  of  language  is  the 
real  test,  especially  the  use  of  words  which  might 
escape  the  notice  of  the  imitator — little  unob- 
trusive words.  Such  a  word  is  the  definite  article, 
o,  rj  >t61  both  because  it  is  used  so  frequently,  and 
also  because  it  shows  in  Homer  all  the  different 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS  89 

stages  through  which  it.  passed  in  changing  from 
a  pure  demonstrative  to  a  simple  defining  article. 

The  demonstrative  is  the  older,  the  article  the 
later  development.     In   Latin   the  demonstrative 

Ule  remained  a  demonstrative,  while  in  languages 
derived  from  the  Latin,  as  the  French  and  the 
Italian,  the  articular  use  of  il  and  le  has  been 
developed  from  the  older  Ule.  If  the  demonstra- 
tive use  is  predominant  in  certain  books  of  Homel- 
and the  articular  in  others,  then  the  belief  is 
justified  that  these  books  were  written  at  different 
periods,  and  if  the  divergence  be  sufficiently  great 
they  must  have  been  wrritten  by  different  poets, 
also. 

The  use  of  the  definite  article  has  furnished 
one  of  the  chief  arguments  for  the  comparative 
lateness  of  the  Odvssev.  Monro  in  his  Odusseii 
II,  332,  says :  ' '  The  defining  article  is  much  more 
frequent  in  the  Odyssey.' '  The  use  and  extension 
of  the  definite  article  has  lately  been  the  subject 
of  repeated  investigation,  the  results  of  wdiich 
are  in  such  substantial  agreement  that  their 
approximate  accuracy  cannot  be  doubted.  Koch, 
De  Articulo  Homerico  (Leipzig,  1872),  published 
a  complete  list  of  all  the  examples  of  o,  ^  to 
in  Homer,  noting  whether  used  as  demonstrative 
pronoun,  relative  pronoun,  or  as  a  defining  article. 
He  gave  no  figures,  but  by  adding  up  his  various 
lists  I  found  that  he  assigned  422  examples  of  the 
definite  article  to  the  Iliad,  and  214  to  the  Odyssey, 
that  is,  he  put  about  twice  as  many  in  his  list  from 


90 


THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


the  Iliad  as  he  did  in  his  list  from  the  Odyssey. 
Miss  F.  Melian  Stawell  in  the  Appendix  to  Homer 
and  the  Iliad  published  statistics  for  the  use  of 
the  article  which  closely  agree  with  those  of  Koch. 
Stummer,  Ueber  den  Artihel  bei  Homer 
( Schweinf urt,  1886),  written  under  the  guidance 
of  von  Christ,  made  an  effort  to  support  Christ's 
theory  of  an  original  Iliad  and  was  very  thorough. 
Stummer  believed  in  a  more  restricted  use  of  the 
definite  article  than  either  of  the  others  I  have 
named  and  assigned  to  a  place  among  demonstra- 
tive pronouns  many  of  the  examples  given  as 
definite  articles.  The  definite  article  is  found 
in  the  Iliad  218  times,  against  Koch's  422;  in  the 
Odyssey  171  times,  against  Koch's  214.  However, 
they  agree  in  this,  that  they  both  assign  the 
greater  number  to  the  Iliad.  Stummer  tried  to 
fit  his  statistics  into  the  theory  of  Christ,  and 
obtained  the  following:  number  of  verses  in  the 
original  Iliad  8981 ;  example  of  definite  article  in 
original  Iliad  125,  that  is,  one  definite  article  in 
each  72  verses;  verses  in  addition  to  the  Iliad 
6712 ;  examples  of  definite  article  in  the  additions 
to  the  Iliad  93,  or  one  definite  article  to  each  72 
verses.  That  is  the  original  Iliad  and  the  addi- 
tions show  exactly  the  same  ratio  in  the  use  of  the 
definite  article.  No  wonder  poor  Stummer  felt 
his  pamphlet  was  a  failure,  and  the  disappointed 
reviewer  (Bursian's  Jahresbericht  XL VI,  189), 
said:  "The  results  of  this  investigation  have  not 
the  importance  one  would  have  been  inclined  to 
expect. ' ' 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS  N 

To  continue  with  the  figures  given  by  Stam- 
mer: entire  Iliad  15,693  verses,  218  examples  of 
the  definite  article,  or  one  in  each   72   vex 

entire   Odyssey   12,110   verses,   171   examples   of 

the  definite  article,  or  one  to  each  71  verses.  In 
the  entire  Iliad  6  is  used  as  a  demonstrative  pro- 
noun nearly  3000  times,  as  a  definite  article  2  is 
times,  or  in  a  ratio  of  14:1;  in  the  Odyssey,  as 
a  demonstrative  pronoun  2178  times,  as  a  definite 
article  171  times,  or  in  a  ratio  of  13 :1.  The  three 
poems  assigned  to  Hesiod  have  2330  verses;  the 
definite  article  is  found  in  Hesiod  62  times,  that 
is,  once  in  each  38  verses.  This  word  is  found 
in  Hesiod  as  a  demonstrative  pronoun  404  times, 
as  a  true  definite  article  62  times,  or  in  a  ratio 
of  7 :1.  In  the  five  greater  Homeric  Hymns  there 
are  1914  verses,  with  57  examples  of  the  definite 
article,  or  one  in  each  33  verses;  and  this  word 
is  used  as  a  demonstrative  pronoun  217  times  and 
as  a  true  definite  article  57  times,  that  is  in  a  ratio 
of  4:1.  To  restate  these  important  facts  in  a 
brief  summary :  The  Iliad  has  one  definite  article 
to  each  72  verses;  the  Odyssey,  one  definite  article 
to  each  71  verses;  Hesiod,  one  definite  article 
to  each  38  verses;  Homeric  Hymns,  one  definite 
article  to  each  33  verses.  Eatio  of  the  use  of  the 
demonstrative  pronoun  to  the  ratio  of  the  definite 
article:  Iliad  14:1;  Odyssey  13:1;  Hesiod  7:1; 
Homeric  Hvmns  4 :1.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
Hesiod  and  the  Homeric  Hymns  were  written  in 
the  same  verse  and  the  same  dialect  as  the  Iliad 


92 


THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


and  the  Odyssey,  so  that  this  change  in  the  use 
of  the  article  must  have  been  an  unconscious 
change. 

There  could  be  no  more  cogent  reason  than 
these  statistics  for  assigning  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey  to  a  single  period,  a  period  widely  sep- 
arated from  the  time  of  the  origin  of  the  poetry 
of  Hesiod  and  of  the  Homeric  Hymns.  Such  was 
the  spell  or  pall  cast  by  disintegrating  criticism 
that  Stummer,  Christ,  and  the  rest  coldly  passed 
by  these  important  facts  and  saw  nothing  in  them 
but  a  failure  to  reach  anything  of  value.  From 
the  above  figures  it  is  clear  that  the  distance  from 
Homer  to  Hesiod  is  many  times  greater  than  the 
distance  from  Hesiod  to  the  Homeric  Hymns ;  and 
the  slight  advance  from  the  Iliad  to  the  Odyssey 
is  just  what  would  fall  in  the  life  of  one  man. 

Not  only  is  it  impossible  to  separate  the  Iliad 
from  the  Odyssey  on  the  basis  of  the  definite 
article;  but  no  strata  can  be  thus  defined  within 
the  poems  themselves,  else  the  first  and  the  last 
books  of  the  Odyssey,  the  two  books  most  con- 
fidently regarded  as  late  by  the  critics,  would  be 
the  oldest,  since  they  show  the  most  restricted 
use  of  the  definite  article. 

Dr.  Shewan11  has  found  that  the  short  forms 
of  the  dative  plural,  that  is,  ow,  ot?,  77? ,  instead  of 
aiai,  olo-i,  y<ri,  occur  in  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey 
but  once  in  each  240  verses ;  in  Hesiod  and  in  the 
Homeric  Hymns  these  short  forms  occur  once  in 

11  The  Lay  of  Dolon,  52. 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ABGUMENTS  93 

each  thirty-six  verses.  Doctor  Sin-wan  also  found 
by  testing  typical  books  of  the  Iliad  that  the  08 

where  the  diphthong  must  be  read  in  the  genitive 
ending  of  the  second  declension,  a  supposedly 

later  ending,  occurs  once  in  each  sixty  verses  in 
A  and  in  K,  while  in  Hesiod  and  the  Homeric 
Hymns  such  a  genitive  is  found  once  in  each 
nineteen  verses. 

Monro,  Homeric  Gram  mar,  344,  says  :  "Neglect 
of  position  is  perceptibly  commoner  in  the  Odyssey 
than  in  the  Iliad. "  By  neglect  of  position  is 
meant  the  scansion  of  a  vowel  as  short  before  a 
mute  consonant  and  a  liquid.  Doctor  Shewan1  - 
has  made  a  list  of  all  these  metrical  defects  and 
finds  that  there  are  twenty-nine  examples  in  the 
Iliad  and  but  twenty  in  the  Odvssev — numbers 
which  closely  correspond  with  the  relative  size  of 
the  two  poems.  He  found  also  that  these  defects 
occur  relativelv  five  times  as  often  in  Hesiod  and 
the  Homeric  Hymns  as  they  occur  in  the  Iliad 
and  the  Odyssey.  I  have  tested  the  work  done 
by  Doctor  Shewan  again  and  again,  and  I  have 
always  found  it  absolutely  reliable. 

This  remarkable  agreement  of  the  Iliad  and 
the  Odyssey  in  these  small  but  important  lin- 
guistic matters  in  contrast  with  the  changes 
found  in  Hesiod  and  the  Homeric  Hvmns  can  ha\ 

■ 

but  one  explanation ;  they  belong  to  the  same  age. 

The  Greeks  developed  in  their  own  language 

after  they  had  separated  from  the  Indo-European 

stock  a  perfect  in  *a,  the  existing  Greek  literature 

12  Idem,  108. 


94  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

showing  the  clear  development  of  these  perfects 
from  a  sparing  use  in  the  third  singular  indica- 
tive to  a  wide  use  in  the  other  moods.  If  certain 
books  in  Homer  show  free  use  of  this  perfect 
while  others  do  not,  then  we  have  at  hand  an  easy 
test  of  their  relative  antiquity.  Such  a  test  has 
not  escaped  the  service  of  the  critics,  but  it  has 
not  been  useful,  since  the  Iliad  has  seventeen  such 
perfects,  the  Odyssey  thirteen.  The  thirteen  of 
the  Odyssey  bear  about  the  same  ratio  to  the 
seventeen  of  the  Iliad  as  the  number  of  verses 
of  the  Odyssey  bears  to  the  number  of  the  Iliad, 
so  that  the  Iliad  has  one  perfect  in  fca  to  each  923 
verses,  the  Odyssey  one  to  each  931  verses.  The 
two  poems  belong  to  the  same  period  in  a  per- 
fectly well-defined  stage  in  the  development  of 
this  perfect.13 

Professor  Jebb  in  his  tests  of  the  difference 
between  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  said:  "Hiatus 
in  the  bucolic  dieresis  is  about  twice  as  frequent 
in  the  Iliad  as  in  the  Odyssey."14  By  this  he 
means  that  a  word  ends  in  a  vowel  and  the  fol- 
lowing word  begins  with  a  vowel  at  the  end  of 
the  fourth  foot  about  twice  as  often  in  the  Odyssey 
as  in  the  Iliad.  The  fact  is  that  the  Iliad  has  sixty 
examples  of  this  hiatus,  the  Odyssey  sixty-six, 
that  is,  the  two  poems  have  126  and  they  are  so 
evenly  distributed  that  if  three  are  taken  from 
the  one  and  added  to  the  other  they  will  have 

is  A  complete  discussion  of  these  perfects  is  found  in  Class. 
Phil,  VI,  159  ff. 

i*  Jebb,  Homer,  ed.  5,  139. 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS  95 

an  identical  number.  .Miss  Stawell  and  I  ha 
independently  counted  these  examples  and  have 
reached  the  same  conclusion.15  This  agreement 
is  surprising,  even  if  it  had  not  been  an  argument 
of  higher  criticism  that  the  difference  is  so  great 
as  to  make  unity  of  authorship  impossible.  Jebta 
also  added  that  "  books  xxm  and  xxiv  share  with 
the  Odyssey  this  free  use  of  the  hiatus.''  How- 
ever the  fact  is  that  O  has  eight  examples  of  this 
hiatus,  E  has  seven,  B  has  six,  A  has  five,  but  V  has 
only  four,  and  is  thus  in  fifth  place,  and  Q  and  T 
are  tied  for  the  ninth  place.  One  of  the  easiest 
suppositions  of  the  destructive  critics  is  that  no 
one  will  defend  certain  books  of  the  Iliad,  so  that 
in  discussing  these  books  facts  are  hardly  con- 
sidered necessary. 

Jebb  also  cites  the  adjectival  use  of  ovSe'v 
as  being  characteristic  of  the  Odyssey,16  yet  there 
is  but  a  solitary  example  of  this  use  in  the 
Odyssey  (h  350)  and  that  extremely  doubtful. 
The  Iliad  has  two  perfectly  clear  examples,  K  216, 
X  518;  but  in  the  face  of  this,  the  adjectival  use 
of  the  negative,  which  is  unambiguous  only  in  the 
Iliad,  is  selected  as  being  a  peculiar  mark  of  the 
Odyssey.  This  is  of  a  piece  with  the  argument  of 
the  early  chorizontes,  who  said  that  irpoirdpoLdev 
in  a  temporal  sense  is  found  only  in  the  Odyssey ; 
whereas  in  fact  the  Iliad  has  several  examples  of 
this  temporal  use,  K  476,  A  734,  X  197,  while  there 

15  Homer  and  the  Iliad,  317. 
is  Homer,   188. 


96  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

seems  to  be  but  one  example  in  the  Odyssey,  X  483. 
This  use  is  discussed  by  Leaf  in  his  note  to  K  476. 

It  is  agreed  that  back  of  the  poetry  of  Homer 
there  must  have  been  songs  in  the  Aeolic  dialect, 
for  traces  of  this  Aeolic  dialect  are  in  all  parts 
of  Homer.  A  fairly  easy  test  of  the  antiquity  of 
Homeric  books  might  be  furnished  by  the  measure 
of  predominance  of  these  early  forms,  and  it  is 
well-known  that  Fick  and  others  have  by  this  test 
tried  to  select  an  original  Iliad  and  an  original 
Odyssey.  No  test  would  seem  to  be  more  con- 
vincing than  the  comparative  frequency  of  the 
occurrences  of  the  Aeolic  infinitive  in  -e^ev.  It 
is  not  found  in  Ionic- Attic  Greek,  Homeric  poetry 
having  inherited  it  from  earlier  songs. 

Witte,  in  an  article  on  the  Homeric  language 
in  Pauly-Wissowa,  has  shown  that  the  Homeric 
verse  has  a  peculiarly  conservative  influence  just 
before  the  bucolic  dieresis,  and  adds  that  Bekker 
has  observed  that  in  this  place  in  the  verse  the 
Iliad  has  116  infinitives  in  -enev,  the  Odyssey  but 
fifty-one.  This  great  difference  can  hardly  be 
explained  by  difference  in  theme,  and  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  poet  of  the  Odyssey  has  here 
betrayed  his  comparative  lateness,  if  the  figures 
given  above  are  correct. 

Bekker  is  known  as  one  of  the  outstanding 
Homeric  scholars  of  the  last  century;  and  as  he 
is  editor  of  one  of  the  most  illustrious  recensions 
of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey,  we  are  fortunately 
able  to  test  his  figures  in  the  readings  of  his  own 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS  97 

text.  His  statistics  for  the  Iliad  are  substantially 
correct;  in  reading  the  Iliad  in  search  of  the* 
infinitives  I  found  114,  as  compared  with  his 
116,  and  I  might  easily  have  overlooked  two; 
but  in  a  like  search  in  his  own  edition  of  the 
Odyssey  I  found,  not  his  fifty-one — I  actually 
found  seventy,17  so  that,  though  his  figures  for 
the  Iliad  are  essentially  correct,  those  in  the 
Odyssey  must  be  increased  nearly  forty  per  cent. 
Inasmuch  as  the  Iliad  has  3583  more  verses  than 
the  Odyssey,  the  seventy  examples  of  the  Odyssey 
show  little  relative  decline,  when  compared  with 
the  116  of  the  longer  poem. 

When  we  compare  this  usage  of  the  Iliad  and 
the  Odyssey  with  that  of  the  Homeric  Hymns  we 
find  the  greatest  contrast,  for  these  hymns  have 
this  archaic  infinitive  before  the  bucolic  dieresis 
but  once  in  each  one  thousand  verses,  while  the 
first  four  books  of  the  Odyssev  have  one  in  each 
one  hundred  verses.  Evidently  this  form  was 
but  a  learned  survival  in  the  age  when  the 
Homeric  hvmns  were  created  and  manv  years 
must  have  separated  them  from  the  era  which 
produced  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey,  whereas  the 
identical  treatment  as  revealed  in  these  two  great 
poems  assigns  them  to  a  single  epoch. 

The  epic  poet  often  honored  a  man  by  calling 
him  not  bv  his  own  name  but  bv  the  name  of 
his  father,  so  that  Agamemnon  is  often  called 
Atreides,  Achilles  is  called  Peleides,  and  Odysseus 

17  All   the   examples    of   these   infinitives   are   given   in    Class. 
Phil.  XIV,  137. 


98  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

is  called  Laertiades.  Wilhelm  Meyer  wrote  a  dis- 
sertation on  the  use  of  the  Homeric  patronymics18 
which  was  at  once  hailed  as  a  classic  by  the  higher 
critics.  (In  1907  there  were  no  credited  Homeric 
critics  other  than  higher  critics.)  Meyer's  results 
as  given  in  his  own  summary  are  briefly  as  fol- 
lows: "The  patronymics  grow  rarer  not  only  in 
the  later  portions  of  the  Iliad,  but  also  in  all  parts 
of  the  Odyssey.  From  this  decreasing  use  of  the 
patronymic  it  is  evident  that  there  must  have  been 
an  interval  of  many  years  between  the  composi- 
tion of  these  two  poems."  When  I  answered  this 
article  (Class.  Phil.  VII,  293),  I  explained  the 
difference  in  numbers  in  the  use  of  the  patro- 
nymic as  due  to  the  greater  preponderance  of 
heroes  in  the  Iliad  and  to  the  fact  that  so  many 
characters  in  the  Odyssey  are  ignoble  or  com- 
monplace, hence  the  greater  number  in  the  Iliad 
is  to  be  expected.  Even  this  explanation  is 
entirely  unnecessary,  for  the  markedly  decreasing 
use  of  the  patronymics  in  the  assumedly  late 
books  is  pure  fiction,  as  this  simple  test  will  show. 
The  two  books  which  Meyer  regarded  as  be- 
longing to  the  oldest  stratum  are  A  and  X.  The 
following  men  who  appear  in  A  have  patronymics : 
Achilles,  Calchas,  Agamemnon,  Menelaus,  and 
Patroclus,  five  in  all.  The  following  heroes  in 
X  have  patronymics :  Achilles,  Agamemnon,  Mene- 
laus, and  Priam,  or  four  in  all.  Of  those  which 
appear  in  X  only  one  is  not  found  in  A,  so  that 

is  Be  Homeri  Patronymicis,  Gottingen,   1907. 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS  99 

but  six  of  the  men  who  appear  in  these  two  boo) 
have  patronymics.     These  two  books  have  a  com- 
bined length  of  1126  verses. 

The  book  which  all  the  critics  put  as  the  latest 
and  the  worst  in  Homer  is  the  last  book  of  the 
Odyssey.  In  this  last  book  of  the  Odyssey  the 
following  men  are  mentioned  with  the  honoring 
patronymic :  Achilles,  Agamemnon,  Laertes,  Odys- 
seus, Patroclus,  Apheidas,  and  Halitherses,  or 
seven  in  all.  Hence  these  548  verses  of  gj  have 
one  more  patronymic  than  are  found  in  the  1126 
combined  verses  of  A  and  X. 

A  test  applied  to  the  first  book  of  the  Odyssey, 
another  book  which  the  critics  have  regarded  as 
late,  shows  that  it  has  the  f ollowing  patronymics : 
Atreides,  Agamemnonides,  Mermerides,  and  Pei- 
senorides,  only  one  of  which  is  found  in  the  Iliad. 
This  book  in  444  verses  has  but  one  less  patro- 
nymic than  A  has  in  611,  and  exactly  the  same 
as  X  in  515  verses.  Furthermore  two  of  the  patro- 
nymics found  in  a  are  found  only  there,  though 
each  of  the  patronymics  of  X  is  found  in  many 
books  of  the  Iliad. 

One  is  not  obliged  to  explain  the  alleged 
change  between  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey;  all  he 
needs  to  do  is  to  count  the  number  of  patronymics. 
No  other  discussion  of  this  vaunted  treatise  is 
necessarv,  for  it  is  absolutelv  at  variance  with 
easily  tested  facts.  How  could  any  scholar  write 
such  an  article  ?  How  could  competent  professors 
accept  it  with  the  very  highest  praise  ?    How  could 


100  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

editors  and  scholars  receive  it  as  a  final  and 
authoritative  contribution  to  human  knowledge? 
Yet  it  is  on  the  basis  of  just  such  facts  as  these 
that  Huxley  believed  the  critics  had  scientifically 
demonstrated  that  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  could 
not  be  by  a  single  poet. 

I  have  never  taken  up  the  investigation  of  any 
assumedly  important  difference  between  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  and  found  that 
the  underlying  statements  were  true.  I  do  not 
regard  as  of  any  importance  the  fact  that  the 
Iliad  mentions  beans  and  the  Odyssey  does  not, 
or  that  words  for  wounds  and  wounding  abound 
in  the  Iliad,  while  they  are  rarely  or  never  used 
in  the  Odyssey.  The  observation  that  the  Iliad 
has  more  references  to  storms,  snows,  and  the 
phenomena  of  heaven,  an  observation  which  was 
hailed  by  the  critics  as  if  it  were  the  discovery 
of  a  new  planet,  made  little  impression  on  me, 
so  little  that  I  did  not  answer  the  argument  when 
it  first  appeared,  because  the  answer  was  so  easy 
that  I  thought  the  writer  thereof  would  see  it  and 
receive  the  credit  of  retraction  without  outside 
suggestion;  but  the  author  did  not  see  that  the 
reason  for  the  fewer  references  in  the  Odyssey 
is  because  the  action  of  that  poem  is  mostly  under 
roof,  while  the  Iliad  and  its  setting  are  out  of 
doors,  with  warriors  in  the  field.  We  move  in 
the  Odyssey  from  palace  to  palace,  first  in  Ithaca, 
then  in  Pylos,  then  in  Sparta,  and  then  back  to 
Ithaca.     Nature  withdraws   as  we   stand  under 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS  101 

cover,  and  the  average  person  learns  more  of 
the  phenomena  of  heaven  in  one  week's  camping 
than  in  an  entire  lifetime  in  the  city.  Weather 
is  only  an  incident  in  towns,  but  it  governs  every- 
thing in  the  tent  and  field.  The  less  frequent 
references  to  the  phenomena  of  heaven  do  not 
show  any  less  "sensibility  to  natural  phenomena " 
but  do  show  that  Homer  knew  that  storms,  clouds, 
and  the  sky  mean  more  to  men  living  in  camps 
or  in  the  fields  than  they  do  to  inhabitants  of  the 
towns. 

These  and  a  hundred  other  similar  differences 
which  must  exist  between  poems  of  different  or 
similar  themes,  even  by  the  same  poet,  are  of  no 
importance.  The  real  tests  are  found  in  the 
hidden  matters  of  meter,  digamma,  abstract 
nouns,  patronymics,  Aeolic  forms,  formations  of 
the  perfect,  hiatus,  case  endings,  and  such  uncon- 
scious indications  of  the  poet's  land  and  age.  All 
these  proofs  once  widely  accepted  as  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  diverse  authorship  have  utterly  broken 
down,  because,  when  tested  by  the  facts,  they  have 
been  found  to  rest  on  false  assertions  and  false 
statistics.  Doctor  Shewan,  Miss  Stawell,  Pro- 
fessor Shorey,  Professor  Bassett,as  well  as  others 
in  England,  Germany,  France,  Italy,  and  else- 
where, have  tested  other  phases  of  these  so-called 
proofs,  and  they  have  generally  found  the  statis- 
tics and  the  assertions  entirely  wrong.  In  ten 
years  no  higher  critic  has  tried  to  reestablish  one 
of  these  demolished  arguments.    The  only  counter 


102  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

attack  is  a  feeble  remonstrance  that,  although  the 
assertions  we  have  attacked  are  false,  perhaps 
these  errors  may  have  sprung  up  in  some  other 
way;  thus  the  critics  hope  to  shift  the  attack  and 
to  set  up  a  new  science  which  will  not  expose  the 
errors  of  higher  criticism,  but  will  waste  itself 
in  discussion  of  the  genesis  of  these  errors.  "We 
are  only  remotely  interested  in  the  way  these 
errors  arose;  all  we  desire  is  the  admission  that 
they  are  errors,  and  that  Homer  has  been  unjustly 
attacked. 

So  long  as  the  critics  assumed  a  superior  atti- 
tude and  remained  in  the  clouds  and  said:  "We 
can  feel  here  the  great  difference  from  the  old 
epic,"  "Here  we  can  detect  the  ring  of  the  old 
epic  coin, "  or  "He  who  cannot  grasp  this  fact, 
should  not  busy  himself  with  epic  poetry,  for  he 
is  incompetent  to  understand' ' — no  one  dared 
to  show  his  lack  of  any  true  aesthetic  feeling  by 
venturing  to  doubt  them.  Such  critics  needed  to 
present  no  evidence,  for,  as  Cicero  says  in  his 
Tusc.  Disp.  i,  49,  "Who,  although  they  present  no 
arguments,  could  yet  crush  us  by  their  very 
authority. "  Qui  ut  rationem  nullam  adferrent, 
ipsa  auctoritate  nos  frangerent.  But  when  they 
grew  impatient  at  staying  in  the  clouds  and 
began  to  present  facts  and  figures,  then  we  could 
test  their  assertions  and  examine  their  evidence. 
Higher  criticism  committed  suicide  when  it 
fretted  at  being  a  cult  and  aspired  to  become  a 
science. 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ARGUMENTS  108 

The  pretenses  of  the  critics  seem  such  a  sham 
that  one  wonders  it'  after  all  they  arc  not  Speaking 
in  some  cipher,  some  hidden  code,  so  that  when 
they  say  six  they  mean  fourteen,  when  they  e 
nine  they  mean  five,  and  so  for  all  their  other 
facts  and  figures.  Then,  of  course,  what  they 
mean  was  never  to  be  detected  from  that  which 
they  say,  and  all  our  labor  has  been  wasted 
labor,  and  they  have  inwardly  Laughed  at  our 
discomfiture.  It  is  only  on  the  basis  of  some 
cryptogram  that  I  can  explain  Gilbert  Murray's 
theory19  that  the  Homeric  Greeks  were  men  under 
a  vow  of  sexual  chastity,  since  next  to  fighting 
their  greatest  efforts  were  spent  in  breaking  any 
such  vows;  or  Thomson's  theory  of  expurgation,20 
based  on  the  assumption  that  Homer  has  not  a 
trace  of  the  envy  of  the  gods.  Does  not  Menelaus 
complain  that  it  was  the  envy  of  the  gods  which 
had  prevented  him  and  Odysseus  from  spending 
their  old  age  together?  Does  not  Penelope  lament 
that  it  was  divine  envy  which  had  taken  away  her 
husband  in  her  youth?  I  can  offer  no  other  ex- 
planation of  Menrad's  attempt21  to  show  that 
Odysseus  was  a  sun-god.  Menrad  says:  "The 
twelve  companions  who  went  with  Odysseus  to 
explore  and  visit  the  haunts  of  Circe  were  the 
twelve  months."  Yet  Homer  definitely  fixes  the 
number  at  forty-five!  Menrad  Bays,  "the  118 
suitors  are  the  118  days  of  the  winter  months," 

is  Rise  of  Greek  Epic,  152. 

20  Studies  in  the  Odyssey,  11. 

2i  Der  Urmythus  der  Odyssee,  26,  42. 


104  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

but  Homer  explicitly  tells  us  that  there  were  108 
suitors.  How  did  he  get  these  figures?  Had  he 
never  read  Homer,  or  did  he  use  some  cryptogram 
from  a  hidden  cipher?  Or  is  scholarship  so  limp 
a  thing  that  facts  are  nothing  and  one  may  sub- 
stitute anything  one  chooses  for  anything  that  is? 

Saddest  of  all  is  the  fact  that,  for  about  a 
century,  Homeric  criticism  has  lived  apart  from 
Homer.  Each  new  theory  is  accepted  as  an  addi- 
tion to  human  knowledge,  with  no  attempt  to  test 
it  by  the  evidence  of  the  poems  themselves.  The 
best  possible  proof  that  higher  critics  have  made 
no  real  study  of  Homer  is  furnished  by  the  fact 
that  not  a  single  one  of  them  has  ever  indepen- 
dently detected  any  of  the  errors  to  which  I  have 
called  attention  above. 

Van  Leeuwen,  the  great  Hellenist  of  Holland 
and  for  a  generation  one  of  the  leading  destruc- 
tive critics  of  Homer,  just  as  he  was  laying 
down  his  life's  work,  wrote  these  pathetic  words 
(Mnemosyne,  1910,  341)  : 

I  recognize  the  error  in  which  I  have  long  been  in- 
volved, since  now  I  see  the  better  way.  The  fault  was 
in  our  teachers  who  taught  us  the  things  they  thought 
were  true,  which  we  in  turn  presented  to  our  pupils.  I 
now  proclaim  openly  my  belief.  The  context  of  the  Iliad 
and  the  Odyssey  cannot  be  loosed  without  the  ruin  of 
the  whole.  Each  is  a  single  poem,  conceived,  elaborated, 
composed  by  a  single  poet.  The  poetry  of  Homer  will 
continue  to  live  so  long  as  we  permit  it  to  remain  entire, 
but  it  will  die,  pass  away,  and  slip  through  our  fingers, 
if  we  undertake  to  dissect  it  or  to  tear  it  apart. 


THE  LINGUISTIC  ABGUMENTS  LOS 

Koemer   in   his  last  work,   Homerische  Auf8( 

published  in  his  seventieth  year,  said,  "Most  men 
who  have  spent  their  lives  with  Homer  have  aever 

given  Homer  a  chance."  That  is  the  simple 
truth;  Homer  has  not  been  given  a  chance  and 
most  students  who  have  done  work  on  Homer 
have  been  directed  to  find  errors  and  contradic- 
tions where  none  exist.  These  disintegrating 
arguments,  based  on  false  statistics,  have  been 
wax  in  the  ears  of  nearly  all  students  of  Homer. 
Their  ears  have  never  had  a  chance  to  catch  the 
music  of  his  songs;  they  have  been  as  deaf  to 
the  voice  of  Homer  as  were  the  companions  of 
Odvsseus  to  the  voice  of  the  Sirens. 

The  linguistic  attack  on  Homer,  the  most 
serious  that  could  be  devised,  has  entirely  failed 
to  create  a  presumption  of  diverse  authorship. 
Instead,  this  attack  has  made  it  most  improbable 
that  two  poems  of  such  great  length  could  show 
such  practical  identity  of  language,  unless  they 
wTere  the  creation  of  a  single  age  and  of  a  single 
poet. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED 

MATTERS 

The  assumed  differences  in  language  have 
furnished  the  chief  argument  for  the  modern 
chorizontes,  but  this  argument  has  been  sup- 
ported on  all  sides  by  the  assumption  of  differ- 
ences or  contradictions  in  geography,  topography, 
chronology,  customs,  religion,  government,  and 
the  greatest  divergences  of  every  sort.  The  list 
is  formidable  and  apparently  overwhelming. 
These  differences  were  assumed  to  prove  not  only 
that  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  were  not  the  work 
of  a  single  poet  but  that  each  poem  was  itself 
made  up  of  a  mass  of  individual  and  contradictory 
songs. 

Professor  Rothe's  recent  book  in  defense  of 
the  unity  of  the  Odyssey,  Die  Odyssee  als  Dicht- 
ung,  was  supposedly  crushed  by  the  unanswerable 
arguments  presented  by  Finsler  and  Wilamowitz, 
that  the  first  four  books  of  the  Odyssey  demand 
as  their  background  the  heat  of  summer,  although 
the  story  of  Odysseus  from  his  arrival  in  the  land 
of  the  Phaeacians  until  his  reunion  with  Penelope 
demands  the  cold  and  raw  temperature  of  the 
late  autumn  and  early  winter.  The  whole  story 
of  the   Odyssey   covers   only   about  forty  days. 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS     107 

If  part  of  it  assumes  as  its  setting  the  heat  of 
summer  and  the  rest  the  cold  of  early  winter  it 
would  obviously  be  impossible  to  embrace  both 
these  seasons  in  a  space  of  forty  days.  The  poets 
of  the  Odyssey  have  thus  betrayed  themselves  by 
these  careless  references,  and  the  poem  in  its 
present  form  must  be  an  amalgamation  of  at  least 
two  poems,  one  with  the  setting  of  summer,  the 
other  with  the  setting  of  winter. 

It  is  manifestly  difficult  to  assign  such  poetry 
to  definite  months  or  seasons,  yet  the  Odyssey 
does  presuppose  a  background  in  the  seasons  of 
the  vear.  Of  this  there  are  several  indefinite  indi- 
cations  and  one  that  is  supposedly  definite. 

The  definite  indication  is  as  follows :  When 
Odysseus  (c  272)  went  from  the  presence  of 
Calypso  and  sailed  toward  the  land  of  the  Phaea- 
cians,-  he  guided  his  course  by  the  Pleiades,  the 
late-setting  Bootes,  and  the  Bear.  The  Bear  is 
visible  every  night  of  the  year,  so  that  its  presence 
gives  no  indication  of  the  season.  The  Pleiades 
and  Bootes,  however,  are  changeable,  hence  the 
fact  that  they  were  both  visible  should  give  a 
rough  notion  of  the  time  of  the  year.  The  Ger- 
man scholars  named  above  said  that  this  reference 
could  be  to  the  winter  season  only,  since,  they 
argued,  it  was  not  until  late  autumn  that  the 
Pleiades  and  Bootes  could  both  be  seen  at  the 
same  time. 

Professor  Fox,  director  of  the  Dearborn  Astro- 
nomical Observatory,  has  very  kindly  figured  for 


108  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

me  the  exact  position  of  these  stars  from  900  to 
700  b.c.  His  figures  are  for  latitude  39°  N. 
This  is  the  latitude  of  Smyrna,  the  assumed  home 
of  Homer,  and  the  approximate  latitude  of  Cor- 
cyra,  the  conjectural  home  of  the  Phaeacians. 
Since  Odysseus  sailed,  keeping  these  stars  on  his 
left,  that  is,  in  an  easterly  direction,  we  may  pre- 
sume that  that  latitude  would  not  be  amiss  for 
the  home  of  Calypso,  as  well  as  for  that  of  Homer, 
Alcinous,  and  Odysseus. 

Professor  Fox's  conclusions  are  as  follows: 

After  allowing  for  the  precession  of  the  equinoxes 
it  is  found  that  in  800  B.C.  the  Pleiades  were  visible  in 
lat.  39°  N.  from  dusk  to  dawn,  that  is  all  night,  from 
September  1  to  November  2;  also  that  Arcturus,  the 
essential  star  in  the  constellation  Bootes,  set  during  the 
hours  of  daylight,  except  during  the  period  extending 
from  June  15  to  October  21.  If  a  sailor  saw  during  the 
same  night  the  Pleiades  and  the  setting  of  Bootes,  the 
earliest  date  must  have  been  September  1,  the  latest 
October  21.  The  change  in  season  of  these  stars  since 
800  b.c,  because  of  the  precession  of  the  equinoxes,  is 
about  thirty-one  days,  so  that  these  conditions  would 
now  fall  about  one  month  later  in  lat.  39°  N.,  with  a 
corresponding  lengthening  of  the  period  as  the  observer 
moves  north. 

If  it  was  the  setting  of  Bootes  which  attracted 
the  hero's  attention,  and  if  this  setting  could  not 
be  seen  later  than  October  21,  then  it  is  impossible 
to  assign  this  voyage  to  a  later  season  in  the 
year,  and  the  cool  assumption  that  these  stars 
demanded  the  late  autumn  is  thus  absolutely 
false.    How  did  such  an  error  arise  f    Here  again 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS     109 

my  astronomical  friend  gave  me  complete  sati 

faction.  Owing  to  the  precession  of  the  equi- 
noxes, the  constellations  are  delayed  about  a  day 
per  century;  also  the  farther  north  one  goes, 
the  later  these  northern  constellations  sink  from 
view,  so  that  in  Berlin  the  setting  of  Bootes  may 
now  be  seen  as  late  as  the  twenty-fifth  of  Novem- 
ber, and  the  rising  of  the  Pleiades  has  grown 
correspondingly  later.  Finsler  and  Wilamowitz 
assumed  that  Odysseus  was  a  contemporary  sail- 
ing in  the  latitude  of  Berlin!  The  statement, 
then,  that  the  movements  of  Odysseus  must  fall 
in  the  late  autumn  is  absolutely  false. 

No  better  is  the  other  assertion  that  the  jour- 
nev  of  Telemachus  demands  the  heat  of  summer. 
The  trip  made  by  Telemachus  was  from  Ithaca 
to  Pylos  and  on  to  Sparta.  Ithaca  lies  south  of 
lat.  39°  N.  and  is  thus  about  150  miles  south  of 
Naples,  and  the  climate  differs  but  little  from 
that  of  the  nearby  Corfu.  Baedeker,  in  his 
Greece,  252,  says  of  the  climate  of  Corfu:  "The 
temperature  is  mild  in  October  and  the  first  half 
of  November,  but  June,  July,  August  and  (often) 
September  are  very  hot."  The  last  week  of  Sep- 
tember, to  which  I  assign  this  journey,  would  be 
just  the  season  when  the  heat  of  summer  has 
begun  to  yield  to  the  coolness  of  autumn.  There 
is  but  one  reference  in  regard  to  the  temperature 
in  the  first  book  of  the  Odyssey  (443),  where  it 
is  said  the  young  man  slept  covered  with  wool. 
The  fact  that  he  was  thus  covered  shows  that  we 


110  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

are  not  dealing  with  the  heat  of  summer,  but  with 
the  coolness  of  early  autumn.  From  Ithaca  he 
went  to  Pylos,  which  is  supposed  to  have  been 
on  or  near  the  site  of  the  modern  Navarino,  the 
climate  of  which  is  thus  described  by  Mr.  Grundy 
in  his  well-known  book,  The  Great  Persian  War, 
VIII :  "During  the  four  weeks  I  spent  at  Navarino 
the  thermometer  never  fell  below  93°  Fahrenheit, 
night  or  day,  and  rose  to  110°  or  112°  in  the  abso- 
lute darkness  of  a  closed  house  at  middav. "  In 
the  evening,  when  Telemachus  started  to  go  to  his 
ship,  as  if  to  spend  the  night  there,  Nestor  was 
highly  indignant,  protesting  that  he  had  suf- 
ficient coverings  to  keep  not  only  his  family,  but 
his  guests  warm  and  snug.  If  the  weather  were 
the  summer  weather  described  by  Mr.  Grundy, 
then  these  words  about  a  bountiful  supply  of 
coverlets  were  intended  as  a  piece  of  dry  humor, 
a  quality  alien  to  the  character  of  Nestor.  When 
Telemachus  and  his  companion  started  on  their 
trip  to  Sparta,  they  whipped  their  horses,  and 
their  horses  were  so  eager  to  go  that  they  did  not 
rest  at  any  period  of  the  day,  but  kept  right  on. 
During  the  long,  hot  days  of  summer  they  could 
not  have  traveled  all  day,  but  must  have  rested 
during  the  heat  of  noon,  and  limited  their  going 
to  the  cool  hours,  if  there  were  any  cool  hours, 
of  the  morning  and  evening.  These  verses  (y 
484  ff.)  show  that  the  theory  of  these  critics  was 
not  founded  on  the  Odyssey,  but  was  an  indepen- 
dent conjecture,  which  ignored  not  only  the  more 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS     111 

difficult  facts  of  astronomy  but  the  easily  ascer- 
tainable statements  of  the  poem.1 

In  the  second  half  of  the  last  century  skepti- 
cism had  full  control  of  all  phases  of  Homer,  so 
that  not  only  the  poet  had  been  eliminated  but  his 
Troy  also  had  been  relegated  to  the  realm  of  the 
impossible.  Homer  described  that  city  as  near 
the  sea,  on  a  low  hill,  close  to  two  rivers.  From 
this  city  Mount  Ida  could  be  seen  in  one  direction 
and  the  island,  Samothrace,  in  the  other.  Hardly 
more  than  fifty  years  ago  it  was  agreed  that  no 
such  city  had  existed  near  the  shore,  that  it  was 
impossible  for  any  magnificent  civilization  to  have 
arisen  in  that  early  day  in  the  Troad,  and  that 
the  bulk  of  the  Iliad  was  the  magnified  tradition 
of  a  stronghold  on  a  spur  of  Mount  Ida,  far  from 
the  Dardanelles.  Thus,  practically  ignoring  the 
Iliad,  it  was  believed  that  the  "mighty  Ilium 
rising  from  the  plain,"  was  only  the  confused 
picture  of  an  unimposing  fortress  back  among  the 
hills.  This  belief  was  so  thoroughly  established 
that  in  practically  all  the  classical  atlases,  except 
the  very  recent,  Troy  is  marked  on  the  maps  as 
definitely  located  on  this  un-Homeric  site,  the 
modern  village  of  Bunarbaschi. 

At  the  period  of  the  greatest  Homeric  agnos- 
ticism a  German  merchant,  Heinrich  Schliemann, 
who  had  accumulated  a  fortune  by  the  time  he  had 
reached  early  middle  life,  took  up  the  study  of 
Greek  in  order  that  he  might  read  Homer  in  the 

i  "Assumed  Contradictions  in  the  Seasons  of  the  Odvssey, " 
Class.  Phil   XI,  148. 


112  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

poet's  own  language.  He  not  only  read  Homer 
but  committed  much  of  him  to  memory  as  well, 
and  in  his  enthusiasm  visited  the  plain  of  Troy. 
He  was  utterly  regardless  and  perhaps  ignorant 
of  the  arguments  of  the  critics  and  started  to 
search  for  the  site  of  the  old  city,  using  Homer 
for  his  guide  in  the  safe  confidence  with  which  a 
mariner  turns  to  his  compass  and  his  charts.  In 
the  face  of  the  united  ridicule  of  the  learned  clas- 
sical world,  and  in  spite  of  difficulties  apparently 
unsurmountable,  he  found  a  city  on  the  very  spot 
where  Homer  had  placed  it  and  just  such  a  city 
as  Homer  had  described.  Never  has  simple  faith 
been  better  justified  and  better  rewarded.  Few 
of  his  original  critics  were  convinced,  but  they  are 
all  dead  and  their  writings  have  joined  in  their 
fate.  I  am  familiar  with  the  name  of  no  scholar, 
under  seventy  years  of  age,  who  doubts  that 
Schliemann  has  discovered  the  ruins  of  the  very 
city  whose  fate  inspired  the  poetry  of  Homer. 
Schliemann  was  aided  in  finding  the  site  of  Troy 
by  Frank  Calvert,  consular  representative  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  at  the  Dar- 
danelles, who  had  already  started  to  excavate  at 
Hissarlik  when  Schliemann  was  searching  else- 
where. 

Doctor  Walter  Leaf  in  his  edition  of  the  Iliad 
was  one  of  the  most  eager  followers  of  the  doc- 
trines of  destructive  criticism  and  believed  that 
the  topographical  contradictions  in  regard  to  the 
Troad  made  the  unity  of  the  Iliad  impossible. 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS     118 

In  his  note  to  E  355  he  wrote:  "However  it  has 
been  shown  by  Hercher  that  it  is  impossible  to 
reconcile  Homeric  geographical  statements  with 
themselves  or  with  each  other. "  Be  wrote  that 
sentence  at  a  time  when  he  trusted  the  opinions 
of  others.  Later  he  visited  Troy  and  studied  the 
ruins  and  the  topography  of  all  that  district  with 
a  thoroughness  rarely  equaled,  comparing  each 
part  of  the  city  and  of  the  plain  with  the  words 
of  the  poem.  After  this  careful  and  independent 
investigation  on  the  spot  and  with  Homer  in  his 
hand  he  wrote:  "One  thing  at  least  has  passed 
from  me  beyond  all  doubt;  the  poet  has  put  into 
living  words  a  tradition  founded  on  real  fighting 
in  this  very  place.' '  ....  "It  is  a  remarkable 
fact  that,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  no  case  of  local 
inconsistency,  not  a  single  anatopism,  can  be 
brought  home  to  the  Iliad."2 

The  second  book  of  the  Iliad  closes  with  two 
catalogues,  first  a  fairly  full  catalogue  of  the 
Greeks,  then  a  very  meager  catalogue  of  the 
Trojans.  This  Trojan  Catalogue  is  perhaps  the 
least  esteemed  part  of  Homer.  Doctor  Leaf,  in 
his  Iliad,  said  of  it:  "The  Catalogue  of  the  Tro- 
jans differs  notably  from  that  of  the  Greeks  in 
the  evident  wTant  of  detailed  knowledge  of  the 
countries  wdth  which  it  deals.' '  "When  he  had 
visited  the  regions  from  which  the  Trojans  and 
their  allies  had  come,  however,  he  wrote  thus : 
"The  Trojan  Catalogue,  in  particular,  seems  to 
represent  accurately  a  state  of  things  which  must 

2  Troy,  A  Study  in  Homeric  Geography,  169,  12. 


114  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

have  existed  at  the  time  of  the  Trojan  War,  and 
could  not  have  existed  after  it,  nor  for  long  be- 
fore" (p.  13);  "The  result  of  my  journey  was 
to  confirm  the  view  that  the  Troad,  so  far  as  it 
is  described  in  the  Iliad,  is  described  from  true 
historical  knowledge,  and  that  so  much  of  the 
Trojan  Catalogue  as  deals  with  the  kingdom  of 
Priam  may  be  taken  as  an  authentic  historical 
document:  a  conclusion  which  I  do  not  hesitate 
to  extend  to  the  larger  part  which  tells  of  the 
Trojan  allies' '  (p.  6).  These  words  were  written 
by  the  man  who  had  done  more  than  any  other 
man  in  England  to  spread  the  separatists'  doc- 
trines, but  written  when  he  had  turned  his  eyes 
from  the  critics  and  looked  at  things  as  they  are. 

Arguments  from  language  are  settled  neither 
by  presumptions  nor  by  reasonings,  but  solely  by 
a  study  of  the  poems  themselves,  and  Doctor 
Leaf's  investigation  on  the  spot  seems  conclusive 
to  me,  especially  as  he  went  to  Troy  after  he  had 
already  published  his  belief  in  the  topographical 
ignorance  of  Homer. 

The  vanity  of  all  other  methods  is  shown  in 
the  fact  that  Kobert3  argues  that  the  location  of 
the  city  of  Troy  was  accurately  given  only  in  the 
oldest  parts  of  the  Iliad,  yet  Wilamowitz  with 
equal  assurance  and  with  similar  logic  asserts 
that  the  location  of  Ilium  was  unknown  in  the 
oldest  parts  of  the  Iliad,  and  any  accurate  topo- 
graphical indication  is  a  sure  mark  of  lateness: 

3  ' '  Topographische  Probleme  der  Ilias, "  Serines  XLII,  78. 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS     L16 

"The  poet  of  the  Iliad  had  absolutely  no  concep- 
tion of  the  location  of  the  city  of  Troy."*  Yet 
Bdhliemann  and  Calvert  took  that  same  Iliad  and 
with  it  as  their  sole  guide  found  Troy,  and  Doctor 
Leaf,  an  avowed  skeptic,  when  he  read  that  Iliad 
in  the  plains  of  Troy  and  studied  the  ruins,  re- 
nounced his  doubts. 

The  leader  of  the  Greeks  was  given  as  Aga- 
memnon from  Mycenae.  Mycenae  was  situated 
on  the  edge  of  a  rugged  plain  in  the  lower  foot- 
hills, a  good  day's  march  from  Corinth.  In  his- 
tory it  appears  only  as  a  miserable  little  village, 
able  to  furnish  but  eighty  men  to  meet  the  invad- 
ing army  of  Xerxes;  and  Mycenae  and  Tiryns, 
with  the  adjoining  districts,  could  provide  but 
four  hundred  troops  for  the  great  struggle  at 
Plataea.  How  feeble  their  combined  strength 
then  was  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Phlius  fur- 
nished for  that  one  battle  a  full  thousand  men  and 
Sicyon  three  thousand.  Homer  pictured  Mycenae 
as  "rich  in  gold,"  "well-built,"  the  center  of  a 
vast  empire  whose  ruler  could  muster  an  army 
of  over  one  hundred  thousand  men,  who  controlled 
twelve  hundred  ships,  and  who  was  so  firmly 
established  in  his  power  that  he  could  hold  this 
army  together  in  a  foreign  field  without  a  decisive 
victory. 

Mycenae  is  hardly  mentioned  in  any  history 
of  fifty  years  ago,  as  it  was  not  imagined  that 
such  a  city  as  that  pictured  in  Homer  had  ever 

*  Die  Was  und  Homer,  333. 


116 


THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


existed,  and  the  whole  story  was  hardly  deemed 
worthy  of  a  denial.  There  was  also  a  vague 
tradition  that  Agamemnon  and  others  of  his 
family  had  been  buried  there.  Schliemann,  with 
his  wonderful  capacity  for  accepting  as  true  any 
essential  statement  in  Homer,  began  excavations 
in  Mycenae.  He  chanced  to  begin  digging  in  just 
the  right  spot  and  soon  found  gravestones,  then 
the  graves  themselves.  In  these  graves  were 
skeletons  literally  buried  in  gold,  crowns,  scepters, 
bracelets,  plates,  and  jars ;  some  of  these  weighing 
sixty  ounces  of  solid  gold.  In  one  of  these  graves 
were  found  seven  hundred  discs  of  gold  and 
twenty-four  enormous  breastpins;  in  another 
were  many  artistic  swords  of  bronze  and  gold. 
The  faces  of  some  of  the  dead  were  portrayed  by 
golden  masks.  Evidently  Homer  was  not  far 
wrong  when  he  described  Mycenae  as  "rich  in 
gold"  and  when  he  made  it  the  center  of  a  great 
and  wealthy  empire. 

The  walls  and  the  general  culture  of  Troy  and 
Mycenae  so  closely  correspond  that  there  is  no 
doubt  that  they  were  flourishing  at  the  same 
period,  a  period  which  has  been  named  the  Myce- 
naean Age.  It  was  this  age  which  furnished  the 
background  for  the  Homeric  poems,  and  the  civi- 
lization pictured  by  Homer  roughly  agrees  with 
the  civilization  recorded  on  the  monuments  and 
the  discoveries  connected  with  the  end  of  the 
Mycenaean  period.  Back  of  this  Mycenaean  Age 
is  an  earlier  powerful  civilization  centering  in 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTBRS     117 

Crete,  but  the  Homeric  picture  is  of  the  Myce- 
naean civilization  near  the  period  of  its  00llap8e, 
about  1100  B.C. 

Many  verses  which  were  supposed  by  the 
critics  to  represent  customs  arising  later  than 
Homer  are  now  seen  to  describe  things  known  in 
the  Mycenaean  Age.  In  K  173  a  razor  is  men- 
tioned, the  only  reference  to  this  instrument  in 
Homer.  This  was  therefore  seized  upon  as  a  sure 
proof  of  the  lateness  of  this  book,  for  the  use  of 
razors  was  assumed  to  be  comparatively  late ;  but 
a  razor  has  been  found  in  a  grave  in  Mycenae, 
proving  that  razors  were  in  use  long  before 
Homer.  The  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  have  but  a 
single  reference  to  slings  (N  600)  and  once  a  ref- 
erence is  made  to  "the  well-twisted  threads  from 
the  fleece  of  the  sheep' '  (N  716),  where  a  sling 
is  probably  meant.  These  two  passages  have  been 
ruthlessly  removed  as  later  additions,  but  a  frag- 
ment of  a  silver  vase  found  in  Mycenae  represents 
a  group  of  slingers  near  a  wall  hurling  missiles 
at  a  besieging  foe. 

An  attempt  was  made  to  divide  the  books  of 
Homer  on  the  basis  of  the  armor,  since  it  was 
assumed  that  in  the  oldest  portions  the  warrior 
used  only  a  great  shield  which  protected  the  entire 
body.  It  was  argued  that  this  great  shield  so 
completely  shielded  the  body  that  no  other  pro- 
tecting armor  was  necessary,  hence  all  references 
to  coats  of  mail  or  cuirasses  were  to  be  regarded 
as  later  additions.     It  was  on  the  basis  of  the 


118  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

armor  that  Robert  tried  to  reconstruct  his  orig- 
inal Iliad,  rejecting  all  verses  or  scenes  which 
referred  to  small  shields  or  coats  of  mail. 

No  such  uniformity  of  armor  ever  existed 
among  the  Greeks,  and  in  the  Mycenaean  repre- 
sentations of  huntsmen  and  warriors  the  varia- 
tions in  styles  of  armor  are  quite  as  great  as  in 
the  verses  of  Homer.  In  the  famous  Warrior 
Vase  the  soldiers  all  have  small  shields  extending 
only  from  the  shoulder  to  the  hip,  and  they  seem 
to  have  a  protection  for  their  body  much  like  a 
coat  of  mail.5  In  the  inlaid  dagger  blade  the 
shields  cover  the  entire  body,6  and  in  the  silver 
fragment,  which  represents  the  slingers,  the 
shields  seem  to  extend  to  just  below  the  hip.  In 
an  early  Cretan  seal  the  warrior  clearly  has  a 
protection  under  his  shield,  that  is,  he  depends  on 
both  the  shield  and  the  coat  of  mail.7  All  these 
various  representations  of  armor  found  in  early 
monuments  show  that  the  descriptions  of  armor 
in  Homer  are  no  more  varied  than  the  armor 
pictured  from  life. 

The  assumed  difficulties  and  contradictions  in 
the  descriptions  of  Homeric  palaces  have  all  been 
cleared  up  and  harmony  found  by  the  recovery 
of  the  actual  foundations  of  just  such  palaces.8 
No  test  by  which  it  has  been  sought  to  separate 
the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  or  any  part  of  either 

5  Fowler  and  Wheeler,  Greek  Archaeology,  90. 

6  Idem,  77. 

7  Anthropology  and  the  Classics,  57. 

s  Bassett,   "The   Palace   of    Odysseus,"   Am.    Jour,    of   Arch- 
aeology, 1919,  288  ff. 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS     119 

poem  has  found  confirmation  or  support  in  tl. 
finds  made  at  any  of  the  numerous  Mycenaean 

sites. 

Professor  Seymour,  although  he  did  not  be- 
lieve in  Homeric  unity,  could  find  no  evidence  for 
his  want  of  faith  when  he  considered  the  life  and 
civilization  portrayed  in  these  two  poems.  In  his 
Life  in  the  Homeric  Age  he  wrote  (p.  13)  :  "As 
regards  these  questions  we  are  obliged  to  regard 
the  Homeric  poems  as  units.  The  evidence  for 
the  later  date  of  the  Odyssey  as  yet  is  philological, 
not  archaeological. "  This  was  written  in  1907, 
just  before  tests  of  the  accuracy  of  these  philo- 
logical arguments  had  begun  to  be  made.  We 
know  now  that  the  philological  evidences  on  which 
he  based  his  belief  have  been  totallv  discredited. 

^Modern  separatists  have  laid  great  stress  on 
the  fact  that  the  Odyssey  shows  a  marked  ad- 
vance in  the  notions  of  piety  and  holiness,  and 
in  the  words  expressing  these  ideas.  This  is  no 
proof  for  diverse  authorship.  Shakespeare  in  his 
earlier  plays  never  uses  the  w^ord  " pious,' ' 
though  in  Hamlet  and  subsequent  plays  that 
word  is  found  no  less  than  eleven  times.9  We  may 
say  of  any  passage  of  poetry  that  such  a  word 
or  idea  was  used,  but  we  cannot  assume  that  the 
idea  omitted  or  left  unsaid  was  not  known. 

The  poet  of  the  Odyssey  mentions  the  palm 
tree,  the  poet  of  the  Iliad  does  not,  but  we  cannot 
argue  that  this  tree  became  known  to  the  Greeks 

9  Professor  Bradley,  quoted  by  Miss  Stawell,  Homer  and  the 
Iliad,   108. 


120  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

in  the  interval  between  the  creation  of  the  two 
poems.  The  Iliad  mentions  the  grasshopper, 
cranes,  eels,  maggots,  swans,  sparrows,  sparlings, 
the  ass,  and  many  other  forms  of  common  animal 
life  which  are  not  named  in  the  Odyssey,  yet  must 
have  been  known  to  the  author  of  that  poem. 

The  Iliad  has  roughly  1500  words  which  are 
not  found  in  the  Odyssey  but  which  must  have 
been  perfectly  familiar  to  educated  people  at  the 
time  the  Odyssey  was  composed.  We  can  argue 
absolutely  nothing  from  the  silences  of  the  poem, 
unless  we  have  some  external  proof  that  what  is 
not  mentioned  is  also  not  known.  It  is  a  strange 
and  a  most  remarkable  fact  that  Homer  never  de- 
scribes the  setting  of  a  ring  nor  carved  stones, 
although  nothing  in  the  art  of  the  age  he  is  por- 
traying is  more  characteristic  or  shows  greater 
skill  than  the  carving  of  these  settings. 

The  fact  that  Homer  wrote  poetry  as  poetry, 
not  as  history,  not  as  theology,  and  not  as  arch- 
aeology, makes  it  impossible  to  do  more  than 
roughly  outline  the  life  and  the  civilization  of  his 
actors.  The  Mycenaean  finds  help  to  fill  in  some 
of  that  outline  but  most  of  it  remains  a  blank. 
We  must  exercise  great  caution  in  drawing 
arguments  from  silence  or  from  the  comparative 
frequency  with  which  words  are  used.  We  know, 
for  example,  that  Emerson  was  not  acquainted 
with  the  kodak,  not  because  he  does  not  use  that 
word,  but  because  we  have  independent  evidence 
that  both  the  instrument  and  the  word  came  into 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS     121 

being  after  his  time,  but  we  are  not  justified  in 
drawing  a  like  conclusion  if  the  word  is  not  found 
in  the  writings  of  Stephen  Phillips  or  Alfred 
Noyes.  Homeric  silences  similarly,  when  unsup- 
ported by  external  evidence,  furnish  no  proof  of 
the  poet's  choice  or  of  his  knowledge.  We  must 
know  from  some  outside  source  that  Homer  was 
ignorant  of  the  things  he  did  not  mention  before 
we  can  draw  any  important  conclusions  there- 
from. 

In  the  sixth  book  of  the  Iliad,  303,  the  women 
of  Troy  try  to  win  the  favor  of  Athena  by  making 
her  an  offering  of  a  splendid  garment.  Doctor 
Leaf  describes  this  image  of  Athena  as  "a  rude 
wooden  image  such  as  survived  in  many  temples 
into  historic  times."  But  the  critics  have  seen 
in  this  image  a  mark  not  of  rude  antiquity  but 
of  polished  lateness,  and  Bethe  uses  this  verse 
with  confident  enthusiasm  to  prove10  that  the  Iliad 
could  not  have  come  into  being  until  the  sixth 
century  b.c.  He  assumes  that  Homer  was  describ- 
ing a  seated  statue  of  Athena  of  life  size,  and  he 
argues  that  these  large  statues,  these  life-sized 
images  of  the  gods,  were  not  created  before  the 
sixth  century ;  therefore  the  scene  in  the  Iliad  with 
its  great  seated  image  of  Athena  could  not  have 
been  created  before  the  time  of  Solon.  There 
is  nothing,  however,  but  Bethe 's  fancy  to  prove 
that  this  image  was  large.  Homer  makes  no 
reference  to  its  size;  all  he  says  is  'Atf^au;?  eVl 

10  Neue  Jahrbiicher  f.  d.  cl.  Phil.,  1919,  1-16. 


122  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

yovvao-c.  There  is  no  reason  for  regarding  the 
image  of  Athena  as  life  size,  and  but  little  for 
regarding  it  as  seated.  The  noun  " knees' '  and 
the  verb  "take  by  the  knees' '  are  constantly  used 
by  Homer  in  a  figurative  sense.  In  A  130  Aga- 
memnon overtook  the  sons  of  Antimachus,  both 
in  one  chariot,  who,  when  they  saw  they  could 
not  escape,  took  him  by  the  knees,  yovva^eadrjv^ 
begging  for  their  lives.  It  would  have  been  im- 
possible for  two  men  standing  in  a  small  chariot 
to  clasp  the  knees  of  a  man  standing  on  the 
ground,  hence  the  verb  must  have  been  used  in 
a  figurative  sense.  The  common  phrase,  "these 
things  lie  on  the  knees  of  the  gods,"  6ewv  iv 
yovvao-L  /ceiTcu,  could  hardly  be  forced  to  mean  that 
all  the  gods  were  conceived  as  always  remaining 
seated.  It  was  simply  used  to  mean,  "These 
things  are  now  out  of  our  control  and  are  in  the 
keeping  of  the  gods. ' '  This  is  all  the  phrase  need 
mean  in  regard  to  the  image  of  Athena,  and  the 
verse  is  best  translated,  "The  robe  was  given 
over  to  the  keeping  of  the  goddess."  We  know 
from  Strabo  xiii,  601,  that  in  historical  times  the 
image  of  Athena  in  her  temple  in  Troy  was  a 
standing  image;  also  the  ancient  coins  from  the 
vicinity  of  Ilium  have  many  representations  of 
Athena;  but,  so  far  as  those  coins  have  been  re- 
produced in  the  exhaustive  work  of  von  Fritze,11 
not  one  represents  the  goddess  as  seated.  The 
testimony  of  Strabo,  the  coins,  and  the  conserva- 
tism in  cult  matters,  all  unite  in  proving  that  in 

ii  Appendix  to  Dorpfeld  's  Troja  und  Ilioiu 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTKI;       123 

Bomer  the  goddess  was  doI  pictured  as  seated. 
Bethe's  whole  argument  for  the  lateness  of  !h<i 

Iliad  rests  on  the  assumption  that  life-sized  and 

seated   statues  of  the  gods  were   firsl    seen   in 
Greece  about  600  b.c,  and  that  in  Homer  we  ha 

the  description  of  such  a  statue;  hence  the  | 
age  must  be  at  least  as  late  as  the  sixth  century. 
The  argument  has  two  serious  defects :  fir- 
Homer  does  not  give  the  slightest  indication  that 
the  image  was  life-sized — that  is  pure  presump- 
tion— and,  second,  the  evidence  clearly  shows  that 
the  image  was  not  seated.12 

Perhaps  no  more  convincing  argument  for  the 
late  date  of  certain  portions  of  the  Odyssey  has 
been  advanced  than  the  argument  in  regard  to 
the  Sicels.  The  Iliad  has  no  references  to  these 
western  lands  and  their  inhabitants,  and  it  has 
been  supposed  that  references  in  the  Odyss» 
must  belong  to  a  time  later  than  Greek  coloniza- 
tion in  southern  Italy  and  Sicily.  The  argument 
is  so  simple  that  it  is  given  in  the  handbooks  as 
a  fact,  e.g.  in  Christ-Schmid. 

We  know  when  the  first  Greek  settlements 
were  made  in  Sicily;  hence  the  critics  had  a  defi- 
nite date  and  could  show  that  these  references 
could  not  be  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century.  However  Signor  Orsi  has  recently  car- 
ried on  excavations  in  these  regions  and  has 
found  that  the  inhabitants  of  Bruttium  had  the 
same  stage  and  style  of  civilization  as  the  Sicels 

12  An  excellent  discussion  of  Bethe's  theory  is  given  by  Drerup, 
Berliner  phil.  Wochcnschrift,  1919,  nos.  51  and  52. 


124  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

in  Sicily.  Moreover,  what  is  of  the  very  greatest 
importance,  he  found  fragments  of  many  sorts 
of  undoubted  Greek  vases,  fragments  antedating 
by  many  centuries  the  oldest  Greek  settlements 
in  the  west,  and  thus  proved  that  long  before  the 
settlers  came  to  Italy  and  Sicily,  Greek  traders 
and  sailors  were  familiar  with  these  very  regions, 
where  they  traded  the  artistic  and  useful  wares 
of  the  Greeks  for  the  copper  and  raw  materials 
of  the  lands  lying  in  the  central  basin  of  the 
Mediterranean.13  It  should  not  have  been  left  to 
the  discoveries  of  Signor  Orsi  to  show  that  a  civi- 
lization such  as  the  Mycenaean  could  not  have 
remained  ignorant  of  these  nearby  lands. 

It  has  often  been  observed  that  the  Iliad  has 
far  more  similes  than  the  Odyssey,  the  ratio  being 
approximately  four  to  one,  and  this  has  been 
believed  to  prove  that  the  poet  of  the  Odyssey 
was  decidedly  inferior  to  the  poet  of  the  Iliad  in 
this  creative  and  visualizing  power.14  However, 
the  reason  for  this  disparity  is  evident.  The  Iliad 
has  a  theme  most  difficult  to  enliven  and  to 
diversify,  and  the  constant  repetition  of  battles 
and  of  single  combats  would  be  tedious  in  the 
extreme  were  the  story  not  told  with  a  wealth  of 
poetic  adornment.  But  the  varied  events  of  the 
Odyssey  need  no  such  embellishment,  just  as  in 
the  Iliad,  when  there  is  variety  of  theme  or  of 
action  sufficient  to  grip  for  its  own  sake,  there  are 
few  or  no  similes.    The  first  book  of  that  poem  has 

is  Oldfather,  Class.  Weekly,  VIII,  66. 
i4Finsler,  Homer,   I,  328  ff. 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS     123 

rapid  and  c-haii.i_rin.LT  action,  1  nit  it  has  no  elaborate 
simile;  while  the  second  book,  with  the  marshall- 
ing of  the  troops,  abounds  in  similes.  No  one 
could  argue  that  B  shows  higher  poetic  powers 
than  the  preceding  book.  In  neither  the  Iliad 
nor  the  Odyssey  are  the  similes  used  for  their 
own  sake,  or  for  adornment,  but  only  to  hold  or 
direct  the  attention  of  the  hearer.  A  telling  proof 
that  the  difference  is  due  to  the  theme  and  not 
to  the  author  is  found  in  the  fact  that  in  Vergil 
the  books  of  travel  and  of  adventure  have  but  few 
similes,  while  the  fighting  scenes  have  relatively 
many.  Book  in,  which  is  largely  Odyssean  in 
content,  has  only  one  simile,  and  book  xn,  the  book 
most  resembling  the  fighting  scenes  of  the  Iliad, 
has  eighteen  similes ;  hence  in  this  poem  of  un- 
doubted unity  we  find  that  those  parts  which  most 
nearly  correspond  with  the  story  of  the  Odyssey 
have  few  similes,  while  those  most  resembling  the 
action  of  the  Iliad  have  them  in  abundance.15  We 
cannot  deny  unity  to  Homer  on  the  basis  of  poetic 
qualities  which  are  not  questioned  in  Vergil. 

The  similes  of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odvssev  show 
exactly  the  same  traits,  the  same  partiality  for 
the  external  world,  the  world  one  sees,  rather 
than  for  comparisons  drawn  from  the  realm  of 
the  mind.  Each  poem  has  but  one  simile  based 
on  the  mental  world,  and  in  each  the  speed  of 
thought  is  the  occasion  of  the  comparison.  Each 
poem  shows  the  same  enthusiasm  and  admiration 

is  Statistics   for   Vergil  are  given   by   Thomson,   Be   compare.- 
tionibus  Vergilianis.     See  Class.  Jour..  XIII,  687. 


126  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

for  lions.  Oddly  enough  this  trait  was  shared 
by  the  artist  who  created  the  famous  dagger  blade 
discovered  in  Mycenae,  for  on  each  side  of  that 
blade  is  a  lion  scene.  The  poet  in  each  poem 
shows  the  same  willingness  to  cling  to  and  to 
expand  the  simile  after  its  purpose  has  been  ful- 
filled, for  example  (T  2)  :  The  noise  with  which 
the  Trojans  advanced  is  compared  with  the  cry 
of  birds,  then  he  adds,  "like  the  cry  of  cranes  far 
ahead  in  the  heavens,  which  flying  from  winter  and 
the  heavy  storm,  move  with  clangor  toward  the 
streams  of  the  ocean  bearing  death  and  destruc- 
tion to  pygmy  men,  and  early  in  the  morning  they 
begin  the  baneful  struggle.' '  Here  the  pleasure 
the  poet  felt  in  the  cranes  leads  him  away  from  his 
story  to  a  detailed  description  of  the  object  with 
which  he  illustrated  his  narrative.  Exactly  the 
same  poetic  detachment  is  found  in  the  Odyssey 
(t  205)  :  When  the  disguised  Odysseus  calmly 
told  Penelope  that  he  had  seen  her  husband,  ' '  she 
melted  to  tears  like  the  melting  snow,  snow  on 
the  top  of  a  lofty  mountain,  after  the  west  wind 
has  caused  it  to  fall,  and  then  as  it  melts  the  rivers 
run  full  to  the  sea. ' '  Here  we  almost  forget  Pene- 
lope in  thinking  of  the  snow,  how  it  came,  how 
it  melts,  and  how  it  finds  its  way  to  the  rivers. 
Such  similes  abound  in  each  poem. 

Both  poems  add  to  the  effectiveness  of  the 
similes  by  an  occasional  touch  of  human  interest. 
In  the  Iliad  (0  559)  the  poet  compares  the  camp- 
fires  in  the  plain  of  Troy  and  their  beauty  to  a 


AXTloilTIKs  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS  127 
night  "when  in  the  heaven  the  stars  shine  round 

the  clear  full  moon,  when  all  the  air  is  still,  and 

every  cliff  and  headland  towers  distinct,  and  all 

the  stars  are  seen,  and  a  shepherd  rejoices  in  hifl 
heart."  It  was  not  enough  for  the  poet  to  picture 
this  scene  of  beauty,  there  must  be  some  one  to 
see  it  and  to  rejoice  in  it,  even  if  that  person  be 
only  a  shepherd.  In  the  Odyssey  (x  30_!)  the  poet 
thus  describes  Odysseus  and  those  who  helped 
him  in  the  slaughter  of  the  suitors : 

And  they  like  unto  strong-taloned,  hook-beaked  vul- 
tures when  swooping  down  from  the  mountains  they  rush 
at  smaller  birds,  birds  which  fly  close  to  the  earth  in 
terror,  and  the  vultures  darting  at  them  destroy  them, 
for  they  can  neither  defend  themselves  nor  escape,  and 
men  gaze  at  the  sport  with  delight. 

Finally  the  comparison  of  the  slow  withdrawal 
of  Ajax  from  superior  foes  writh  the  slow  move- 
ments of  a  sluggish  ass  which  little  children  are 
attempting  to  drive  from  a  field  of  grain  seems 
to  be  the  conception  of  the  same  poet  who  likened 
the  restlessness  of  Odysseus  to  the  activity  of  a 
sausage  wdiich  a  man  constantly  whirls  and  turns 
over  a  heavy  fire  and  the  sausage  is  kept  from 
burning  solely  by  the  speed  with  which  it  is 
turned.  Indeed  the  similes  of  the  two  poems  show 
such  a  similarity  and  variety,  such  a  wealth  of  the 
powders  of  observation,  and  such  an  ability  to  seize 
on  the  essential  and  striking  features  of  the 
objects  compared  that  they  could  hardly  have 
originated  except  in  the  resourceful  brain  of  the 
same  creative  genius. 


128  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

The  separatist  argument  that  the  bards  are 
more  often  in  evidence  in  the  Odyssey  than  in  the 
Iliad  is  easily  explained  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
Odyssey  the  bards  are  to  be  found  at  the  palace 
of  some  great  king,  such  as  Odysseus,  Agamem- 
non, or  Alcinous,  but  in  the  Iliad  the  Greeks  are 
in  camp  and  there  is  little  place  or  occasion  for 
the  presence  of  the  bard.  Bards  were  known  to 
the  poet  of  the  Iliad,  as  is  shown  by  the  mention 
of  Thamyris,  who  lost  his  sight  boasting  that  he 
could  excel  even  the  Muses  in  song. 

The  bards  are  not  introduced  into  the  Odyssey 
for  their  own  sake  or  for  their  songs.  They  are  the 
means  by  which  the  poet  solved  his  greatest  and 
most  difficult  problem.  The  story  of  the  Iliad  is 
not  complex,  therefore  the  poet  is  not  obliged 
for  the  sake  of  the  actors  in  the  poem  to  repeat 
what  is  already  known  to  his  own  audience;  the 
action  of  the  Iliad  has  the  same  audience  and  the 
same  general  background  throughout.  The  story 
of  the  Iliad  furnishes  its  own  interpretation,  but 
in  the  Odyssey  the  case  is  far  different.  In 
that  poem  three  distinct  groups  of  hearers  are  to 
be  considered :  the  poet 's  own  audience,  the  people 
of  Ithaca,  and  the  Phaeacians  who  were  the  people 
of  Alcinous.  The  method  bv  which  Homer  met 
this  difficulty  is  one  of  the  greatest  proofs  of  his 
genius.  He  wished  to  repeat  little  or  nothing 
already  known,  yet  he  must  keep  each  of  these 
three  groups  informed  without  retelling  what 
was    already   known   to   the   others.      He   could 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS     129 

assume  that  his  own  audience  was  acquainted  with 
the  story  of  the  Iliad  and  the  traditions  which  lay 
around  it,  hence  knew  of  Odysseus;  but  he  could 
not  assume  that  an  audience  in  Ithaca  had  any 
clear  ideas  in  regard  to  the  events  connected  with 
the  war  at  Troy;  yet  he  could  not  repeat  for  the 
sake  of  the  Ithacans  a  story  already  known  to 
his  own,  the  poet's,  hearers.  This  difficulty  was 
overcome  by  the  creation  of  the  bard  and  having 
him  sing  a  few  snatches  from  Trojan  themes,  thus 
creating  the  impression  that  the  general  outlines 
of  the  tale  were  already  well-known  and  therefore 
need  not  be  repeated.  The  fact  that  the  bard, 
Phemius,  was  not  allowed  to  sing  his  song,  and 
that  we  have  onlv  a  brief  summary,  ' '  and  he  sang 
of  the  baleful  return  of  the  Achaeans,  which  Pallas 
Athena  had  brought  upon  them  in  their  departure 
from  Trov"  shows  that  the  bard  was  not  intro- 
duced  for  the  sake  of  his  song,  but  to  help  out  a 
bit  of  poetic  mechanism.  After  we  have  listened 
to  these  few  words  from  Phemius  we  know  that 
the  story  of  Troy  is  familiar  to  the  poet's  own 
hearers  and  to  the  men  of  Ithaca,  but  there  still 
remains  a  third  audience,  the  people  of  Alcinous, 
which  must  also  be  kept  informed.  It  was  neces- 
sary, too,  that  this  third  audience  should  be  inter- 
ested in  the  hero  and  eager  to  hear  from  his  own 
lips  the  story  of  his  wandering,  for  without  that 
interest  his  long  tale  could  not  be  told.  Nothing 
related  in  the  earlier  books  has  been  told  to  this 
audience  of  the  Phaeacians,  so  that  the  poet  must 


130  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

start  in  afresh  to  win  the  interest  of  a  new  group 
of  hearers.  That  not  a  single  device  for  arousing 
the  interest  either  of  the  poet's  own  audience  or 
of  the  people  of  Ithaca  is  repeated  before  this 
third  audience  is  proof  of  Homer's  wonderful 
resourcefulness.  When  the  hero  came  into  the 
presence  of  the  Phaeacians  he  at  first  hid  his 
identity,  since  he  had  no  reason  to  believe  that 
they  had  any  interest  in  Odysseus.  But  when  he 
showed  that  wonderful  skill  in  the  athletic  con- 
tests they  were  interested  in  him  for  his  own  sake, 
whoever  he  might  prove  to  be.  The  bard  then 
repeatedly  sang  a  few  snatches  about  the  glories 
of  Odysseus  and  his  exploits  at  Troy,  so  that  we 
know  they  were  interested  in  Odysseus,  wherever 
he  might  be,  and  the  athlete's  glory,  won  by  an 
unnamed  stranger,  easily  merges  into  that  of  the 
hero.  It  was  only  by  withholding  the  name  of 
Odysseus,  when  Arete  asked  him  his  name,  that 
the  poet  could  show  to  Odysseus  how  great  was 
his  heroic  renown  in  the  land  of  the  Phaeacians, 
and  it  was  only  by  the  glory  he  had  won  as  a 
nameless  victor  that  the  Phaeacians  could  accept 
without  questioning  and  at  once  this  unknown 
stranger  as  the  illustrious  Odysseus,  whose  praises 
the  bard  had  just  been  singing. 

No  audience  not  aroused  to  enthusiasm  by 
what  Odysseus  had  done  and  by  the  songs  it  had 
heard  would  have  listened  to  the  long  story  of 
his  wanderings.  The  real  purpose  of  the  games 
and  the   songs   was   to   create   this   enthusiasm. 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS     131 

Strange  as  it  may  seem  the  starting  point  for  the 
destructive  criticism  of  the  Odyssey  carried  on 
by  Kirchhoff  and  all  his  school  lies  in  the  fact  that 
when  Arete,  the  queen  of  the  Phaeacians,  asked 
Odysseus  his  name,  he  evaded  the  answer.  Had 
he  replied  at  once,  "I  am  Odysseus,''  she  might 
have  asked,  "Who  is  Odysseus?  I  never  heard 
of  him  before."  This  would  have  been  an  em- 
barrassing position  for  a  great  hero.  If  she  had 
known  of  the  fame  of  Odysseus,  she  might  have 
said,  "You  have  no  marks  of  that  hero,  and  I 
know  vou  are  not,  since  vou  came  here  dressed 
in  the  clothing  I  made  myself. ' '  This  would  have 
killed  the  Odyssey  right  at  the  start,  yet  it  is  just 
such  poetic  absurdity  that  these  great  critics 
demanded  of  the  poet.  Homer  builded  far  better. 
When  Odysseus  arose  to  speak  and  to  tell  his 
name,  he  knew  that  the  story  of  Troy  and  his  own 
exploits  were  well  known  to  his  hearers,  for  twice 
the  bard  had  sung  of  them;  not  much  indeed, 
but  just  enough  to  show  how  familiar  they  were 
with  Odysseus  and  with  Trojan  traditions.  He 
knows,  as  he  rises,  the  enthusiasm  they  have  for 
him  because  of  the  athletic  skill  which  he  has  just 
displayed,  he  knows  their  enthusiasm  for  the 
heroic  Odysseus,  and  he  also  knows  that  their 
acquaintance  with  Trojan  tales  has  freed  him 
from  the  necessity  of  repeating  for  their  sake  a 
story  already  known  to  the  poet's  own  audience. 
Odysseus  can  thus  begin  the  narrative  of  his 
wanderings  with  the  words,  "The  wind  bearing 


132  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

me  from  Ilium  brought  me  to  the  laud  of  the 
Cicones,"  and  he  feels  no  necessity  to  make  a 
single  reference  to  the  exploits  at  Troy. 

The  songs  of  Demodocus  thus  served  a  double 
purpose:  they  showed  that  Odysseus  would  find 
an  audience  eager  to  listen  and,  of  equal  impor- 
tance, they  made  it  possible  for  him  to  take  for 
granted  a  knowledge  of  the  tale  of  Troy  and  per- 
mitted him  to  begin  the  story  of  his  own  wander- 
ings without  a  hint  of  what  had  happened  there. 

Just  before  Odysseus  left  the  Phaeacians  to 
start  for  Ithaca  Demodocus  sang  again,  but  there 
is  no  hint  as  to  the  theme  of  his  song.  All  that 
the  poet  tells  us  is:  "And  among  them  sang  the 
divine  bard,  Demodocus,  honored  by  the  people." 
There  was  no  longer  any  need  to  introduce  any- 
one or  to  relieve  the  poet  from  the  burden  of 
repeating  a  familiar  tale,  hence  the  unremem- 
bered  song. 

Phemius  did  a  like  service  in  Ithaca.  In  the 
first  book  his  brief  song  of  the  fate  of  the 
Achaeans  shows  that  here  the  story  of  Troy  needs 
no  retelling.  Hence  even  Odysseus  on  his  return, 
although  he  told  his  wife  of  his  wanderings  and 
adventures,  never  mentioned  the  fact  that  he  had 
been  at  Troy  nor  narrated  a  single  event  that  had 
happened  there.  Each  bard  created  by  his  songs 
the  impression  that  Trojan  tales  were  already 
known  and  the  poet  was  thus  saved  from  the 
necessity  of  repeating  for  the  sake  of  the  audi- 
ences in  the  poem  a  tale  already  familiar  to  his 
own  hearers. 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTERS     133 

The  various  shrewd  devices  by  which  the  poet 
overcame  the  necessity  of  repeating  familiar  tales 
have  convinced  me  that  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey 

are  not  repeating  traditions  already  known,  but 
that  they,  too,  are  new  and  original,  creations,  not 
old  material  put  into  verse,  but  new  material 
created  for  new  poems.  Without  an  Iliad  there 
would  have  been  but  scant  tradition  in  regard  to 
the  wrath  of  Achilles,  and  without  an  Odyssey 
there  would  have  been  scant  tradition  in  regard 
to  the  return  of  Odvsseus. 

Xo  bard  is  allowed  to  finish  his  song,  and  we 
are  given  but  a  brief  indication  of  the  theme, 
except  of  the  song  by  Demodocus  telling  of  the 
love  of  Ares  and  Aphrodite.  This  song  was  quite 
apart  from  heroic  traditions  and  was  intended  to 
represent  a  Phaeacian  song,  sung  at  their  banquet 
to  delight  their  leader  and  his  people,  as  well 
as  their  guest,  and  to  give  some  indication  of 
the  things  which  delighted  that  pleasure-loving, 
sensuous  people. 

The  failure  to  appreciate  the  fact  that  the 
bards  were  introduced  as  a  poetic  device  and  not 
for  their  songs  has  caused  all  that  immense  and 
futile  literature  from  Welcker  to  Finsler,  which 
has  tried  to  reconstruct  the  original  poetry  of 
Homer  out  of  such  songs  as  Phemius  and  Demo- 
docus are  supposed  to  have  sung.  Xo  necessity 
for  the  bards  existed  in  the  Iliad,  hence  they  have 
no  part  in  that  poem.  Xo  one  doubts  that  bards 
lived  before  the  Iliad  was  created,  so  that  the 


134  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

failure  of  the  poet  to  make  use  of  them  must  have 
been  from  choice  and  not  from  ignorance.  They 
were  a  poetic  necessity  in  the  Odyssey,  they  were 
not  in  the  Iliad,  and  their  presence  or  absence  is 
no  test  of  authorship. 

There  are  no  tests  of  language,  customs,  or 
civilization  which  show  that  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey  were  not  created  in  the  same  age.  We 
must  remember  that  a  poet  is  to  be  measured  by 
what  he  says,  not  by  what  he  omits,  and  that  even 
what  he  says  is  poetry.  No  one  could  reconstruct 
Milton's  theology  from  his  poetry,  if  that  poetry 
were  the  only  source  of  our  knowledge.  We 
should  imagine  that  his  gods  were  much  like  those 
of  Homer,  for  each  poet  begins  his  poem  with 
an  appeal  to  the  Muse.  Hamlet  might  seem  to 
belong  to  the  age  when  men  fought  with  bows  and 
slings,  for  he  speaks  of  "The  slings  and  arrows 
of  outrageous  fortune,"  yet  Marcellus  in  that 
same  play  asks,  "Why  such  daily  cast  of  brazen 
cannon?" 

In  some  places  Milton's  theology  seems  and 
is  purely  pagan,  while  in  other  places  it  is  purely 
Christian;  and  Shakespeare  in  the  same  play 
refers  to  slings,  arrows,  and  brazen  cannon,  each 
according  to  his  own  poetic  fancy.  Until  we  can 
prove  that  Homer  in  one  passage  failed  to  men- 
tion, because  he  did  not  know  of  it,  something 
which  he  mentioned  in  some  other  passage,  we 
cannot  establish  the  existence  of  various  cultural 
strata  in  Homeric  poetry. 


ANTIQUITIES  AND  KINDRED  MATTBB       135 

Homeric  scholars  are  heavily  in  debt  to  the 
work  of  our  great  archaeologists,  whose  discov- 
eries have  so  completely  demolished  many  of  tin- 
most  vaunted  proofs  of  the  disintegrators.     Not 

a  single  discovery  made  at  Troy,  Tiryns,  Mycenae, 
or  elsewhere  has  vindicated  one  of  all  their  many 
assertions.  Without  the  great  finds  in  the  realm 
of  Priam  and  of  Agamemnon  it  would  have  been 
impossible  to  convince  honest  doubters  of  the  his- 
torical reality  of  Troy  or  of  the  greatness  of 
Mycenae,  and  to  reestablish  the  belief  that  the 
Trojan  War  was  something  more  than  fancy. 
Had  Schliemann  accepted  the  universally  tri- 
umphant beliefs  of  his  day  and  doubted  the  unity 
and  reliability  of  the  Iliad,  Troy  might  never  have 
been  discovered,  and  lovers  of  Homer  could  hardly 
have  dared  to  believe  in  Homeric  unity. 

The  archaeologists,  men  who  deal  with  tan- 
gible objects,  are  as  a  rule  Homeric  unitarians. 
It  is  a  great  pleasure  to  quote  the  words  of  Wace, 
whose  high  standing  is  guaranteed  by  the  fact 
that  he  has  been  for  several  vears  and  still  is  the 
director  of  the  British  School  of  Archaeology  at 
Athens.  He  wrote  in  a  recent  number  of  the 
Edinburgh  Review  (July,  1919)  as  follows: 

The  Wolfian  cloud  still  hangs  over  the  studv  of 
Homer.  It  has  had  a  blighting  effect  on  Homeric  study 
which  otherwise,  thanks  to  the  advance  of  Archaeology, 

might  have  made  surprising  progress We  must 

abandon  the  Wolfian  theory  and  all  it  entails.  The 
Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  were  written  down  when  com- 
posed, and  the  text  has  not  been  substantially  altered 


136  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

since.  The  longer  we  devote  ourselves  to  the  actual 
poems,  the  more  shall  we  be  refreshed,  and  the  more 
will  the  faith  in  our  creed  be  strengthened. 

This  complete  change  of  attitude  on  the  part 
of  unprejudiced  investigators  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  a  few  years  ago  scholars  wearied  of  their 
efforts  to  build  a  worthy  structure  out  of  the 
assumptions  of  the  higher  critics  and  in  their 
weariness  turned  once  more  to  the  study  of 
Homer. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE    CONTRADICTIONS 

Some  of  the  arguments  against  Homeric  unity 
already  mentioned  have  been  advanced  by  one 
group  of  critics,  others  by  others;  but  there  is 
one  argument  upon  which  all  are  agreed.  They 
all  agree  that  there  are,  in  both  poems,  certain 
inconsistencies  and  contradictions,  and  that  these 
are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  make  unity  of  plan  and 
unity  of  authorship  impossible. 

Inconsistencies  like  the  following  are  cited: 
When  Athena,  in  the  guise  of  Mentor,  and  Tele- 
machus  come  to  Pylos,  they  find  a  great  gathering 
of  the  people  assembled  for  a  sacrifice.  Soon, 
however,  the  people  are  forgotten,  and  what  was 
a  multitude  becomes  a  little  family  group.  Later 
when  these  same  two  travelers  arrive  at  Sparta 
on  the  occasion  of  a  great  wedding  feast,  they  find 
the  palace  so  crowded  that  it  seems  impossible 
for  others  to  be  received.  The  wedding  in  turn 
is  soon  ignored  and  is  replaced  by  a  small  domes- 
tic circle,  where  Helen  is  busy  with  her  household 
cares.  When  it  is  time  for  the  guests  to  retire, 
the  bride,  the  groom,  the  entertainers,  are  all  for- 
gotten. Telemachus  declines  an  invitation  to 
make  a   short  visit,  and  yet  tarries  at  least  a 


138  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

month,  with  no  explanation  for  the  delay.  The 
Greeks  before  Troy  at  one  time  are  protected  by 
a  moat  and  a  wall;  at  another,  both  defenses  are 
ignored.  Patroclus  tells  Nestor  that  he  is  in  a 
great  hurry  and  may  not  be  seated,  that  Achilles 
is  impatient,  and,  now  that  he  has  the  information 
for  which  he  came,  he  must  return  with  speed  to 
Achilles ;  yet  he  does  not  return  until  after  action 
which  fills  four  books.  Even  then  he  forgets  his 
errand  and  his  message.  After  Diomede  has 
wounded  both  Aphrodite  and  Ares,  he  shrinks 
from  facing  Glaucus,  lest  he  prove  to  be  a  god, 
saying,  "I  would  not  fight  with  a  god."  Hector, 
after  he  has  been  for  the  most  part  a  hero  in  flight, 
challenges  the  best  of  the  Greeks  to  meet  him  in 
single  combat.  All  seem  afraid,  yet  they  dare 
not  refuse;  and,  oddly  enough,  no  one  refers  to 
the  duel  fought  on  that  very  day  by  Paris  and 
Menelaus,  a  duel  which  had  proved  a  fiasco  and 
the  terms  of  which  had  been  treacherously  broken. 
These  examples  might  be  indefinitely  extended. 
Nothing  in  Homeric  criticism  has  been  so  simple, 
so  easy  as  this.  No  scholar  who  has  set  out  to 
gather  Homeric  inconsistencies  has  ever  returned 
empty-handed,  and  when  once  a  critic  has  acquired 
a  taste  for  this  sort  of  thing  he  soon  convinces 
himself  that  Homer  has  little  else  than  contra- 
dictions. All  these  are  freely  admitted,  they  are 
many,  they  are  found  throughout  the  Iliad  and 
the  Odyssey,  and  they  cannot  be  removed  without 
destroying  the  best  of  both  poems. 


THE   CONTRADICTIONS  139 

Fifty  years  ago  most  believers  in  Homeric 
unity  defended  that  belief  by  the  assumption  that 

all  these  contradictions  had  been  added  to  ti 
poems  by  interpolators.  They  believed  that  by 
removing  these  suspected  passages  harmony  and 
unity  might  be  restored,  an  assumption  that  has 
led  to  the  rejection  of  practically  every  verse  in 
Homer.  No  one  has  ever  given  a  satisfying  expla- 
nation of  the  origin  of  these  interpolations,  or  of 
their  acceptance  by  bards  and  public.  It  may  be 
easy  to  suppose  that  some  prosaic  and  dull  bard 
removed  good  verses  and  substituted  inferior 
ones,  but  here  the  supposition  ends.  For  there 
still  remains  the  harder  necessity  of  getting 
other  bards  to  accept  this  change,  and,  harder 
still,  the  necessity  of  getting  an  intelligent  audi- 
ence, already  familiar  with  the  better  text,  to 
accept  this  inferior  poetry. 

This  explanation,  on  the  basis  of  the  interpo- 
lation of  inferior  scenes,  demands  not  only  one 
inferior  bard,  but  an  inferior  audience,  and  a  like 
inferioritv  in  all  other  bards.  The  creator  of 
nonsense  verses  might  have  pride  in  his  own  pro- 
duction and  not  recognize  his  own  stupidity.  But 
how  could  he  get  his  inferior  version  accepted  I 

The  contradiction  is  not  removed  by  assuming 
a  second  poet,  for  that  second  poet  would  be  most 
careful  not  to  betray  himself  by  any  slips.  The 
whole  scheme  of  higher  criticism  involves  the 
existence  of  a  group  of  poets  determined  to  give 
up  their  own  individuality  and  to  merge  their  own 


140 


THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


work  into  that  of  another.  They  have  so  com- 
pletely mastered  his  language,  his  meter,  his 
style,  that  their  work  cannot  be  detected.  Yet 
they  were  so  ignorant  of  the  very  writings  they 
imitated  and  into  which  they  were  eager  to  merge 
their  own  efforts  that  they  made,  unconsciously, 
k/  these  contradictions.  Certainly  the  imitator  would 
above  everything  strive  not  to  betray  himself  by 
inconsistencies.  But  to  the  original  genius,  the 
creator,  such  things  would  be  of  no  moment;  he 
has  nothing  to  conceal  and  he  need  never  fear  that 
a  slip  may  betray  him.  Even  counterfeiters  are 
detected  by  the  very  consistency  with  which  they 
follow  the  writing  of  the  names  they  forge.  A 
recent  expert  has  said  that  no  man  ever  writes 
his  own  signature  twice  in  exactly  the  same  way, 
while  the  counterfeiter  exactly  repeats  the  signa- 
ture he  is  imitating.1  These  inconsistencies  in 
Homer  are  proof  that  they  come  from  an  original 
genius,  from  one  who  is  himself,  and  not  from 
one  who  is  following  the  style  of  another  or  who 
is  interpolating  his  own  into  another's  poetry. 
All  these  contradictions  or  shifts  of  poetic  purpose 
may  be  explained  on  the  theory  of  one  creative 
genius,  but  are  impossible  of  explanation  on  the 
assumption  that  different  parts  were  added  by 
servile  imitators  or  followers. 

Homeric  contradictions  may  be  divided  into 
three  groups:  actual  contradictions,  due  to  the 
lapse  in  the  memory  of  the  poet,  those  in  which  no 

i  Arthur  S.  Chapman,  American  Magazine,  May,  1920. 


THE  CONTRADICTIONS  in 

poetic  plan  or  purpose  Can  be  detected;  assumed 

contradictions,  due  solely  to  the  failure  of  the 
critics  properly  to  translate  or  to  understand  the 
simple  meaning  of  the  poet;  and  finally,  inoon- 

sisteneies  arising  from  the  manner  in  which   the 

poems  were  presented,  that  is,  from  a  changed 

poetic  purpose,  or  from  the  Bhifting  point  of  view 
of  the  various  actors  in  the  poem 

Actual  contradictions  in  Homer  are  very  few 
and  these  few  of  trifling  importance.  The  li>t 
given  by  Mahaffy  contains  but  one  actual  contra- 
diction, and  that  one  is  grossly  misstated.2  "The 
fact  that  the  same  heroes  are  killed  two  or  three 
times  over  may  pass  as  unimportant."  As  a 
matter  of  fact  not  a  single  hero  or  person  is  slain 
twice  or  dies  twice  in  Homer.  The  only  slip  of 
this  sort  in  all  Homer  is  found  in  the  fact  that 
Pylaemenes,  a  king  of  the  Paphlagonians,  was 
slain  in  E  576,  and  subsequently  mourns  the  death 
of  his  son  (N  658).  Pylaemenes  was  purely  a 
characterless  figure  in  the  Iliad,  who  took  no 
part  in  the  action  and  was  introduced  only  to  b 
slain.  The  poet,  evidently  forgetting  that  he  had 
introduced  such  a  person  and  had  had  him  killed, 
in  a  later  book  mentions  the  death  of  a  son  of 
Pylaemenes  and  the  mourning  of  the  lather. 
This  petty  ruler  was  of  no  importance  in  the  poem 
alive  or  dead,  so  that  it  takes  rather  careful  study 
to  notice  that  the  king  who  mourns  had  been  slain 
eight  books  previously.    This,  as  I  have  already 

2  History  of  Greek  Literature,  I,  83. 


142  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

said,  is  the  only  contradiction  of  the  sort  in  either 
poem. 

A  certain  Schedius,  the  son  of  Perimedes,  was 
slain,  as  was  another  Schedius,  the  son  of  Iphitus. 
The  fact  that  the  name  of  the  father  was  given  in 
each  case  shows  that  there  was  no  confusion.  It 
was  no  easy  matter  for  even  a  Greek  to  make  a 
new  name  for  each  minor  actor.  Homer  used  the 
same  name  over  and  over,  except  for  the  leading 
actors;  with  the  leading  actors  identity  of  name 
would  have  caused  confusion.  There  were  four 
Trojans  and  one  Greek  with  the  name  Chromius, 
one  Greek  and  two  Trojans  with  the  name  Melan- 
ippus,  and  one  Greek  and  two  Trojans  had  the 
name  Adrastus.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
poet  intended  two  persons  by  the  name  of 
Schedius,  one  the  son  of  Iphitus,  the  other  the  son 
of  Perimedes,  so  that  the  statement  made  by 
MahafYy  that  "the  same  heroes  are  killed  two  or 
three  times  over"  is  an  error. 

The  contradiction  in  regard  to  Pylaemenes, 
who  was  killed  in  the  fifth  book  and  mourns 
his  son  in  the  thirteenth,  is  a  real  contradiction. 
But  no  part  of  the  plot  depended  on  Pylaemenes ; 
neither  his  death  nor  his  grief  has  any  bearing 
on  the  story.  No  one  could  assume  that  the  bards 
who  committed  the  poems  to  memory  failed  to 
notice  that  the  Pylaemenes  who  mourned  the  loss 
of  a  son  had  himself  been  slain  a  few  books 
previously.  The  very  fact  that  this  contradiction 
was  never  removed  is  the  best  possible  proof  of 


THE   CONTRADICTIONS  143 

the  fidelity  with  which  the  Homeric  text  had 
been  preserved.    We  may  confidently  assume  that 

bardfl  who  could  not  or  would  not  rectify  this 
manifest   error  had   neither  the   power   nor  the 

inclination  to  change  the  Homeric  tradition. 

Such  errors  as  the  above  abound  in  literatures 
where  the  author  had  the  advantage  of  printing, 
proof  reading,  and  all  the  modern  methods  for 
detecting  mistakes.  In  the  first  edition  of 
Thackeray's  Newcomes  one  of  the  prominent 
characters  dies,  comes  back  to  life,  and  calmly 
continues  to  act  until  the  end  of  the  storv.    Lowell 

■r 

ranks  Don  Quixote  as  one  of  the  greatest  achieve- 
ments of  the  world's  literature.  This  work  was 
printed  and  given  to  the  public  by  the  author 
himself,  yet  it  contains  such  glaring  contradic- 
tions that  it  seems  impossible  that  they  could  have 
escaped  the  notice  of  the  printer.  The  contra- 
diction in  regard  to  Pylaemenes  comes  long  after 
his  death,  so  that  one  could  hardly  notice  it,  and 
Pylaemenes  is  too  unimportant  to  give  any  weight 
to  the  contradiction.  In  Don  Quixote,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  contradictions  are  so  open  that  the 
reader  turns  back  only  a  page  or  two  in  order  to 
make  sure  that  he  has  not  misread  the  text.  The 
four  leading  actors  in  this  great  work  of  Cer- 
vantes are  Don  Quixote,  his  horse  Rozinant<\ 
Sancho,  and  the  ass.  In  chapter  twenty-three 
Sancho's  ass  wTas  stolen,  to  his  infinite  misery. 
Then  the  squire  urged  that  they  proceed,  where- 
upon "the  knight  led  the  way  and  Sancho  followed 


144  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

his  master  sitting  sideways  on  his  ass."  While 
thus  sitting,  Sancho  complained,  "The  theft  of 
my  ass  makes  me  but  a  sorry  traveler  on  foot." 
Cervantes,  in  Part  Two  of  his  great  work,  poked 
fun  at  himself  for  this  contradiction,  but  he  did 
not  think  it  worth  while  to  rewrite  the  scene. 
Again,  Sancho 's  wife  was,  in  one  place,  Maria, 
in  another,  Teresa. 

The  literary  canon  that  contradictions  make 
unity  of  authorship  impossible,  a  canon  which  was 
deified  at  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  is  at 
such  absolute  variance  with  well-known  facts  that 
one  can  only  wonder  at  the  literary  blindness 
which  created  it  or  accepted  it.  This  canon  is 
thus  stated  by  Mahaffy:3  "Wherever  there  is  a 
plain  violation  of  logical  consistency,  we  have  not 
the  work  of  a  single  poet  telling  his  own  story." 
Don  Quixote  suffices  to  show  the  futility  of  this 
rule.  We  must  remember  also  that  Bon  Quixote 
was  not  the  work  of  a  young  and  untried  genius, 
but  of  a  man  nearing  old  age,  who  had  tried  many 
fields  of  literature  and  who  had  produced  many 
great  dramas.  These  contradictions,  therefore, 
were  not  due  to  inexperience.  Even  an  artist  of 
the  delicate  workmanship  of  Vergil,  in  a  single 
book  of  the  Aeneid,4  described  the  wooden  horse 
in  one  passage  as  made  of  fir,  in  another  as  made 
of  maple,  and  in  another  as  made  of  oak. 

Wood,  writing  in  1769,  twenty-six  years  before 
Wolf's  Prolegomena  appeared,  said: 

3  Loo.  oit. 

*  ii,  16,  112,  186. 


THE   CONTRADICTIONS  146 

Cassandra  had  laid  open  to  Anchisefl  the  destination 

of  his  family  for  Italy.     It  is  pointed  out  to  A-  in 

various  manners,  but  most  explicitly  by  the  ghost  of 
Creiisa,  who  not  only  infornifl  him  that  In-  is  to  «ro  to  Italy, 
hut  describee  the  part  of  it  where  he  is  to  reign,    Eel 

in  a  few  lines  we  see  the  Trojans  embark,  without  know- 
ing where  to  go.  Should  we  proceed  to  examine  tic 
whole  action  of  the  Aeneid  in  this  manner,  we  might 

observe  little  inaccuracies  of  the  same  kind,  which  are 
not  to  be  found  so  frequently  in  Homer.5 

This  evidence  is  of  the  greater  weight  from  the 
fact  that  it  comes  from  a  competent  observer  at 
a  time  when  there  was  no  Homeric  Question.  He 
was  trying  to  prove  nothing,  simply  stating  his 
own  observation  that  contradictions  are  not  so 
frequent  in  Homer  as  in  Vergil.  Such  contradic- 
tions abound  in  literary  masterpieces  of  un- 
doubted unity.  In  my  opinion  they  are  proof  of 
just  the  opposite  of  that  which  the  critics  assume, 
that  is,  they  show  that  the  creative  genius  has  his 
mind  and  his  eye  fixed  on  the  general  plan,  the 
leading  idea,  while  the  imitator  could  not  see  this ; 
he  would  notice  the  details,  the  workmanship. 

The  second  class  of  contradictions  consists  of 
those  which  result  from  the  failure  of  the  critics 
to  translate  or  to  understand  the  simple  meaning 
of  the  poet.  This  class  is  almost  unlimited  in 
number  and  is  a  sad  commentary  on  the  ruthless 
manner  in  which  Homer  has  been  mutilated  and 
ignored.  The  few  following  illustrations  from  the 
writings  of  the  most  famous  scholars  will  suffice: 
Bergk  began  his  Griechische  Literaturgeschichte 

6  Op.  cit.,  p.  20. 


146  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

on  a  mammoth  scale,  devoting  over  one  thousand 
pages  to  the  early  epic.  This  volume  he  lived  to 
see  published ;  and  as  it  was  written  by  one  of  the 
most  illustrious  of  Greek  scholars,  it  should  be 
the  ideal  of  a  literary  history.  Bergk,  although 
a  defender  of  Homeric  unity,  regarded  entire 
scenes  and  books  as  interpolations  and  ruthlessly 
removed  them.  The  contradictions  furnished  him 
his  criteria  for  making  most  of  his  decisions.  The 
following  example  may  be  selected  as  one  on  which 
he  laid  great  stress  :  Amphinomus,  one  of  the  most 
kindly  and  gentle  of  the  suitors,  treated  the  beg- 
gar Odysseus  with  such  tender  consideration  that 
Odysseus  tried  to  warn  him  of  his  impending 
danger.  But  the  warning  was  not  heeded;  he 
remained  with  the  suitors  and  was  slain.  The 
poet  tells  us  in  advance  that  Amphinomus  was 
not  to  escape  the  doom  which  Athena  had  pre- 
pared for  him,  for  she  had  decreed  that  he  was  to 
die  at  the  hands  of  Telemachus.  Bergk  found  a 
great  contradiction  here  and  wrote :  ' '  Later,  when 
the  suitors  are  slain,  Amphinomus  does  not 
appear,  a  proof  either  of  a  poetic  error  or  that 
the  description  of  the  death  of  the  suitors  has 
been  changed  in  transmission. "  One  wonders 
that  when  Bergk  wrote  this  sentence  he  did  not 
have  sufficient  curiosity  to  re-read  the  Homeric 
account  of  the  slaughter  of  the  suitors.  If  he 
had  done  so,  he  would  have  found  eight  verses 
wholly  given  to  the  description  of  the  death  of 
this   very  Amphinomus   at   the   hands    of   Tele- 


THE  CONTRADICTIONS  L47 

machus.    These  eight  verses  are  in  every  standard 

edition  of  the  Odyssey;  it'  Bergk  had  a  copy  of 

the  Odyssey,  they  were  in  that  copy. 

Bethe,  because  of  an  a88Umed  contradiction, 
rejects  as  an  interpolation  tin-  episode  (A  194  ff.) 

in  which  the  goddess  Athena  stops  the  attempt 
of  Achilles  to  assault  or  murder  the  king:'5  "II 
would  be  a  tame  climax  for  Achilles  to  throw  hi 
scepter  to  the  ground  after  he  had  already  Hashed 
a  sword  in  the  face  of  the  Greeks";  and  again: 
"The  throwing  down  of  the  scepter  appears  as  a 
cheap  anticlimax,  since  the  sword  has  already 
flown  from  the  scabbard."  Yet  the  Greek  to 
which  he  refers  is  the  simplest  that  could  be  writ- 
ten; the  verb  is  in  the  imperfect  tense  and  can 
be  translated  only,  "While  he  wTas  drawing  the 
sword  from  its  sheath."  "When  Athena  came  she 
said  to  him,  "Drawr  not  thy  sw^ord. "  She  did  not 
command  him  to  return  it  to  the  scabbard,  for 
the  good  reason  that  it  had  not  yet  been  drawn. 
There  is  no  anticlimax  and  no  contradiction  in 
Homer's  account.  Bethe 's  assumptions  and  the 
ponderous  book  he  wrote  rest  on  a  mistaken  trans- 
lation of  a  perfectly  simple  and  a  remarkably 
unambiguous  sentence. 

Mahaffy  selects  as  especially  notable  the  fol- 
lowing contradiction  :7 

In  the  races  of  the  twenty-third  book  Diomede  con- 
tends with  the  horses  he  took  from  Aeneafl  in  the  fifth 
book,  and  no  mention  is  made  of  the  much  finer  hors 

6  Homer:  Dichtung  und  Sage,  188. 

7  History  of  Greek  Literature,  I,  83. 


148  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

he  carried  off  in  the  tenth  book.  Some  allusion  to  them 
here  was  not  only  natural,  but  necessary,  if  a  single  poet 
had  been  thinking  out  the  story. 

The  great  superiority  of  the  horses  of  Rhesus 
over  those  taken  from  Aeneas  is  a  pure  and  un- 
founded assumption.  We  know  nothing  about  the 
horses  of  Rhesus  except  the  words  of  the  craven 
spy,  Dolon,  who  hoped  so  to  arouse  the  eagerness 
of  Diomede  and  Odysseus  for  these  horses  that 
thev  would  save  him.  He  told  them  that  he  had 
never  seen  nobler  or  more  beautiful  steeds,  that 
they  were  as  white  as  snow  and  as  swift  as  the 
wind.  Nestor,  when  he  saw  them  coming  at  night, 
compared  them  to  the  rays  of  the  sun,  evidently 
a  reference  to  their  color.  But  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  the  real  expert  in  horseflesh,  Diomede,  did 
not  pass  any  judgment  upon  them.  When  Aeneas 
drove  his  steeds  to  battle  and  Diomede  saw  them, 
he  knew  all  about  them,  had  their  virtues  and 
their  pedigree  on  the  tip  of  his  tongue,  and  said 
to  his  squire  (E  265)  :  "Those  horses  are  of  the 
stock  which  Zeus  gave  to  Tros  in  return  for 
Ganymede,  the  very  finest  breed  on  which  the  sun 
shines.  If  we  can  get  that  team,  we  shall  win 
great  glory. ' '  This  is  the  opinion  of  a  real  expert. 
The  statement  that  the  horses  of  Rhesus  were 
superior  to  those  taken  from  Aeneas  ignores  both 
their  divine  stock  and  the  enthusiastic  appraisal 
of  the  calm  and  competent  Diomede. 

Wilamowitz'  great  contradiction  in  regard  to 
the  seasons  of  the  Odyssey,  based  on  the  position 


THE  CONTRADICTIONS  Ufi 

of  the  stars,  was  the  result  of  his  own  Lgnoram 

in  astronomy,  and  was  a  mistake  which  tin*  mere 
novice  in  that  science  could  easily  have  rectified. 
The  next  contradiction  which  I  shall  cite  may 
well  seem  to  have  reached  the  bottom  of  absurdity. 

When  (  Mysseus  set  foot  on  the  land  of  the  J  magi- 
cians, he  had  long  been  tossed  on  the  sea,  w, 
without  clothing,  was  famished,  miserable,  and 
wretched.  "While  in  this  plight,  he  heard  the 
laughing  voices  of  Xausicaa  and  her  companions 
at  play.  Breaking  off  the  branches  of  a  tree  to 
cover  his  nakedness,  he  started  to  meet  her  that 
he  might  beg  her  for  food,  for  clothing,  and  for 
guidance.  His  appearance  must  have  been  most 
repulsive,  yet,  by  means  of  words  of  clever  and 
enticing  flattery,  he  overcame  this  difficulty  and 
won  her  respect: 

I  beg  thee,  lady,  tell  me  if  thou  art  a  goddess,  or  a 
mortal.  If  a  goddess,  then  I  liken  thee  to  Artemis,  the 
daughter  of  Zeus,  for  such  is  thy  stature  and  thy  bear- 
ing; but  if  thou  art  mortal,  then  thrice  blessed  thy 
father,  thrice  blessed  thy  mother,  thrice  blessed  thy 
brothers.  Surelv  their  hearts  must  swell  within  them  in 
glad  pride  because  of  thee.7 

Here  the  poetic  soul  of  Fick  detected  a  great  con- 
tradiction and  he  cried  out,  "How  did  Odysseus 
know  that  this  fair  maiden  had  any  brothers  ?" 
Odysseus  konnte  gar  nicht  wissen,  ob  B ruder  vor- 
handen  ivaren.  (Entsteliung  der  Odyssee,  p.  181.) 
This  might  seem  to  be  the  bottom  in  critical 
absurdity,  but  that  honor  seems  to  fall  to  the 

'  f  149. 


150  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

long  list  of  editors  who  have  repeated  the  evidence 
for  contradictions  in  the  simile  of  the  wasps  found 
in  II  265  if.  This  simile  paints  the  fury  with 
which  the  impatient  followers  of  Achilles,  under 
the  command  of  Patroclus,  rushed  to  battle: 

They  rushed  forth  like  wasps  which  have  a  nest  by 
the  side  of  a  road,  wasps  which  little  boys  constantly 
anger  by  always  stirring  them  up,  the  young  rascals, 
and  thus  they  get  many  into  trouble;  for  if  any  unsus- 
pecting traveler  goes  quietly  along  and  disturbs  them, 
they  all  rush  out  with  fury  and  try  to  drive  him  away 
from  their  nest.  With  spirit  like  to  theirs  the  Myrmidons 
moved  on. 

This  scene,  which  forms  the  basis  of  the  simile, 
has  been  repeated  a  million  times.  Few  country 
lads,  indeed,  can  say  that  they  never  threw  a  stone 
or  a  club  into  a  nest  of  wasps  and  then  concealed 
themselves  to  watch  the  attack  the  angry  wasps 
made  upon  some  innocent  wayfarer.  It  is  a 
familiar  fact  that  wasps  will  not  fight  or  sting 
unless  aroused  in  some  such  way  as  Homer 
describes.  The  New  International  Encyclopaedia 
says  under  the  word  "wasps":  "Wasps  are  not 
dangerous  except  when  disturbed.  When  they 
are  flying  about  they  are  harmless  unless  irri- 
tated." This  Homeric  simile  is  so  simple,  so  true 
to  life,  and  it  deals  with  such  a  well-known  matter, 
that  it  is  difficult  to  grasp  the  reasons  why  so 
many  editors  have  failed  to  comprehend  it.  Fried- 
lander  argued  that  we  have  here  a  double  version 
and  a  contradiction.  "In  the  first  version  the 
wasps  were  roused  by  the  children ;  in  the  second, 


THE  CONTRADICTIONS  161 

by  the  traveler."    Of  course  the  only  reason  the 
wasps  rush  at  that  Innocent  traveler  is  because 

the  naughty  boys  have  already  stirred  them  up. 
Xit/.sch  accepts  the  theory  of  the  double  version, 
but  rejects  the  rousing  of  the  wasps  by  either  the 
children  or  the  traveler.  Il<>  thinks  the  simile 
would  gain  force  if  the  attack  of  the  wasps  is  con- 
ceived as  unprovoked,  and  would  reduce  tb«'  whole 
simile  and  its  contents  to  the  simple  but  vigorous 
statement :  ''The  Myrmidons  rushed  to  battle  with 
all  the  fury  of  undisturbed  wasps."  Wilamowitz 
accepts  this  nonsense  in  his  Die  Ilias  und  Homer 
(p.  127).  AVhat  is  most  surprising  in  this  is  the 
fact  that  it  is  quoted  by  Doctor  Leaf,  with  evident 
approval,  in  his  note  to  n  259.  Just  as  Doctor 
Leaf  gave  up  his  doubts  about  the  geography 
of  the  Iliad  when  he  got  away  from  the  critics, 
so,  I  am  sure,  he  will  laugh  to  think  that  he  ever 
quoted  this  absurdity,  "The  simile  would  gain 
force,  if  the  wasps'  attack  is  conceived  as  unpro- 
voked," if  he  ever  takes  the  trouble  to  walk  by 
and  to  observe  a  quiet  nest  of  unprovoked  wasps. 
The  first  class  of  contradictions  was  due  to 
the  nods  of  the  poet,  the  second  to  the  nods  of 
the  critics.  The  third  class  of  contradictions  or 
inconsistencies  is  due  to  the  manner  in  which  the 
poetry  was  presented.  Most  of  these  contradic- 
tions fall  into  a  category  which  has  been  named 
"Devices  of  temporary  expediency."  This  idea 
goes  back,  in  a  measure,  to  Aristarchus,  but  the 
rediscovery  and  scientific  application  of  this  prin- 


152 


THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


ciple  to  modern  Homeric  criticism  lias  been  one 
of  the  chief  reasons  for  the  reestablishment  of  the 
belief  in  the  unity  of  Homer.  It  was  first  worthily 
employed  by  Dr.  Carl  Bothe,  in  a  little  pamphlet 
of  thirty-six  pages,  Die  Bedeutang  der  Wider- 
spruche  fur  die  Homerische  Frage  (Berlin,  1891). 
The  scientific  value  and  aesthetic  worth  of 
German  scholarship  has,  no  doubt,  been  greatly 
discredited  by  the  advocates  of  higher  criticism, 
especially  from  the  fact  that  it  was  in  Germany 
that  this  theory  received  its  so-called  scientific 
birth  and  most  of  its  support.  Wolf,  Lachmann, 
Kirchhotf,  Wilamowitz,  and  a  long  list  of  famous 
names  have  done  much  to  convince  the  world  that 
German  erudition  is  blind  and  stupid,  bent  on 
making  false  facts  in  order  to  support  a  false 
theory.  But  Goethe  and  Schiller  regained  or 
retained  their  honest  vision  and  vindicated  the 
poetic  unity  of  Homer;  Schliemann  spurned  the 
arguments  of  the  critics  and  found  both  Troy,  the 
city  of  Priam,  and  Mycenae,  the  home  of  Agamem- 
non, and  Dorpfeld  later  gave  to  these  discoveries 
their  scientific  and  lasting  interpretation;  Lud- 
wich  has  kept  the  text  of  Homer  free  from  those 
linguistic  vagaries  which  threatened  to  substitute 
conjectural  for  traditional  texts;  Bothe  set  on 
foot  the  ideas  in  regard  to  contradictions  which 
must  prevail ;  and  Sturmer  and  Drerup  have  writ- 
ten and  are  now  writing  the  most  detailed  and 
elaborate  defense  of  Homeric  unity  with  which  I 
am  familiar,  a  defense  which  covers  practically 


THE  CONTRADICTIONS  l 

every  wrse  of  both  poems,  inducting  even  the 
parts  most  suspected.  When  we  balanoe  the 
ledger  and  figure  both  the  debit  and  the  credit 

accounts,  we  must  honestly  admit  that  the  world 
of  Bomerio  scholarship  is  overwhelmingly  in  debt 

to  <  lermany. 

Doctor  Rothe's  great  contribution  to  Bomeric 

study  consists  in  the  evidence  that  this  poetry  is 
not  complicated  and  involved,  but  simple  and 
carried  by  a  single  thread,  each  scene  being 
constructed  or  planned  for  its  own  sake.  For 
example,  the  poet  wished  to  give  a  picture  of 
private  and  domestic  life,  and  with  this  in  view  he 
planned  the  parting  scene  between  Hector  and 
Andromache.  No  other  actor  than  Hector  could 
be  used.  The  poet  therefore  had  him  leave  the 
field  at  just  that  moment  when  he  was  most 
urgently  needed  as  a  fighter,  ostensibly  for  the 
purpose  of  urging  that  sacrifices  be  offered  to 
Athena.  This  was  a  service  the  lowliest  soldier 
could  have  performed.  But  the  lowliest  soldier 
could  not  play  a  part  in  the  scene  with  Andro- 
mache, and  so  Hector  was  spared  from  the  battle. 
Each  scene  in  Homer  must  have  the  attention  of 
the  audience  as  it  is  heard.  It  is  not  enough  that 
the  hearer  was  interested  yesterday,  and  that 
there  will  be  another  scene  to  interest  him  to- 
morrow. The  poet  must  focus  his  own  and  his 
hearers'  attention  on  the  scene  that  is  now  being 
recited.  The  poet  has  always  a  definite  notion 
of  his  actors,  for  they  are  consistent  throughout. 


154  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

But  he  takes  little  interest  in  the  way  in  which  he 
poses  them  or  brings  them  on  or  sends  them  off 
the  stage. 

The  epic  poet  had  no  means  but  language  for 
denoting  the  coming  or  going  of  actors  or  for  a 
change  in  scenery  or  background.  Often  a  person 
appears,  acts,  then  disappears,  without  a  word 
from  the  poet  to  tell  us  he  is  gone.  Had  the  poet 
described  the  coming  or  going  of  each  participant 
in  the  action,  the  narrative  would  be  dull  and 
tedious.  Much  is  left  to  the  intelligence  and  imag- 
ination of  his  hearers.  Gods  and  heroes  slip  from 
place  to  place  with  amazing  suddenness  and  in 
absolute  silence.  The  eye  gives  the  needed  infor- 
mation in  the  theater  or  in  a  moving  picture,  but 
no  such  help  was  at  hand  for  the  epic  poet.  In 
O  17  Achilles  laid  down  his  spear;  fifty  verses 
later  it  is  back  in  his  hand.  The  fact  that  he  has 
it  later  is  proof  enough  that  he  must  have  picked 
it  up,  an  action  we  could  have  seen  on  the  stage, 
but  which  must  be  tacitly  assumed  in  Homer. 
When  Poseidon  came  over  the  sea  to  the  battle- 
field he  came  in  his  magnificent  chariot  drawn 
by  fleet  steeds  with  manes  of  gold.  He  shackled 
them  with  golden  shackles  that  they  should  await 
his  return.8  But  when  he  left  the  field  there  is  no 
mention  either  of  his  shackled  horses  or  of  the 
method  of  his  going.9  Zeus  had  been  watching  the 
battle  from  Mt.  Ida,10  yet  all  at  once  he  is  back  in 
Olympus.11    Ares  was  sitting  on  the  outskirts  of 

s  N  23.  io  0  152. 

9  0  219.  ii  n  431. 


TIIK   CONTRADICTION  166 

the  battle  with  his  hor  iii<l  chariot,11  bul  whan 
he  arrived,  he  came  apparently  on  foot."    Athena 

and   Bera  Came  to  the  plain  of  Troy  in  a  chariot. 

They  unhitched  their  horses,  turned  them  out  to 
graze,  and  Btarted  to  aid  the  Greek-  Bui  the 
goddesses  apparently  forgot  their  horses  and  Lefl 
them  there,  for  their  return  from  the  field  of  hattle 
is  told  in  a  single  verse:  "Athena  with  Bera  re- 
turned to  Olympus."15  These  apparent  slips  are 
all  to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  epic  poetry 
depended  solely  on  the  ear;  if  every  detail  had 
been  given,  the  poem  would  have  been  so  encum- 
bered as  to  be  intolerable. 

The  length  of  the  Iliad,  over  15,000  verses, 
made  it  impossible  for  more  than  a  small  portion 
to  be  recited  at  a  single  time.  The  poet  must 
therefore  so  plan  his  work  as  to  assist  the  bard 
by  making  it  possible  for  him  to  recite  at  a  single 
time,  portions  fairly  complete,  yet  so  related  with 
what  has  gone  before  and  with  what  is  yet  to  be 
as  to  create  pleasure  by  recalling  what  has  been 
already  heard  and  by  anticipating  that  which  is 
to  follow.  The  present  division  of  each  poem  into 
twenty-four  books  is  purely  arbitrary — bo  arbi- 
trary, indeed,  that  a  sentence  begun  in  Odyssey  13 
is  concluded  in  the  following  book.  The  division 
was  made  by  the  grammarians  of  Alexandria  in 
order  to  facilitate  references  and  was  based  on 
the  twenty-four  letters  of  the  Greek  alphabet. 

12  E  356.  i*E  775. 

13  E  35.  is  E  907. 


156  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Professor  Drerup,  by  means  of  repeated  tests, 
has  found  that  a  skilled  reciter  can  pronounce, 
with  proper  intonations,  about  five  hundred 
Homeric  verses  per  hour,  and  that  the  powers 
of  a  reciter  are  practically  exhausted  in  two 
hours;  hence  a  rhapsodist  would  be  limited  on  a 
single  occasion  to  about  one  thousand  verses. 
With  this  limit  in  mind,  he  started  to  read  the 
Iliad,  and  found  to  his  great  delight  that  the  poem 
easily  divided  itself  into  such  groups,  each  group, 
like  the  whole,  having  a  beginning,  a  middle,  and 
an  end ;  each  complete  in  itself,  yet  each  a  part  of 
the  greater  unity  of  the  whole.16  If  Homer  is 
read  with  these  two  facts  in  mind,  first,  that  the 
poems  were  created  to  be  recited  in  portions  of 
about  one  thousand  verses  each,  and,  second,  that 
the  bard  must,  without  the  help  of  stage  setting 
or  background,  concentrate  the  attention  on  the 
scene  he  is  then  presenting,  most  of  the  so-called 
inconsistencies  and  contradictions  will  disappear. 

I  shall  apply  these  principles  to  two  of  the 
most  criticised  contradictions  in  Homer :  first,  the 
refusal  of  Diomede  to  meet  Glaucus,  lest  he  should 
prove  to  be  a  god,  despite  the  fact  that  he  has  on 
that  very  day  wounded  both  Aphrodite  and  Ares ; 
and,  second,  that  it  was  noon  twice,  apparently,  on 
the  same  day.  In  E  127  Athena  took  the  mist  from 
the  eyes  of  Diomede  so  that  he  could  recognize 
the  gods  and  thus  know  and  wound  Aphrodite. 
This  purpose  was  realized  in  verse  330.  Diomede 
perceived  the  goddess   and  thrust  her  with  his 

is  Drerup,  Das  fiinfte  Buch  der  Ilias,  421. 


THE  CONTRADICTIONS  187 

spear.     A  few  versos  further  on   Diomede  ifl  d< 

scrilied  aa  rushing  at  Aeneas,  although  he  knew 

that  Apollo  protected  him,  thus  clearly  showing 
that  the  power  of  miraculous  sighl  still  remained 

with  liim.     Again   in   verse  815   he   recognized 

Athena  at  ouce.  The  command  to  wound  only 
Aphrodite  was  later  enlarged  by  Athena  herself 
and  made  to  include  the  wounding  of  Ares.  From 
the  time  when  Athena  gave  this  power  to 
Diomede,  in  E  127,  to  the  end  of  that  hook,  he 
retained  this  miraculous  vision,  so  that  he  was 
able  to  see  and  to  know  the  gods.  At  the  end 
of  book  five  there  is  plainly  a  pause  in  the  poem, 
the  field  is  deserted  by  the  gods,  who  return  to 
Olympus,  and  the  bard,  as  well  as  the  hearers, 
takes  a  needed  rest.  Xo  one  can  read  the  Iliad 
without  feeling  that  the  poet  planned  an  inter- 
mission at  this  place. 

With  book  six  the  poem  takes  a  new  start.  The 
gift  of  Athena  was  a  special  gift  for  a  special 
purpose,  and  both  the  gift  and  its  purpose  were 
a  part  of  the  preceding  book.  Xo  unprejudiced 
reader  would  argue  that  the  gift  of  miraculous 
sight  was  a  perpetual  gift.  It  must  also  be 
observed  that  each  deitv  wounded  in  book  five 
was  wounded  by  the  express  orders  of  Athena. 
AVhen  book  six  opens,  Athena  has  withdrawn  from 
the  scene  of  action,  and  Diomede  has  returned  to 
his  normal  vision  and  also  to  his  natural  fear  of 
fighting  one  of  the  gods.  When  Glaucus  appeared, 
therefore,  Diomede,  still  evidently  under  the  spell 


158  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

and  the  excitement  of  his  previous  exploits,  hesi- 
tated to  meet  him,  lest  he  should  prove  to  be  a 
god.  These  words  of  Diomede  would  have  con- 
stituted an  impossible  contradiction  had  they 
appeared  in  the  previous  book,  but  in  book  six 
Athena  and  her  divine  gift  are  both  alike  with- 
drawn, and  Diomede  is  once  more  a  mortal  hero 
with  neither  the  power  to  discern  nor  the  will  to 
fight  a  divine  being. 

In  A  84  occur  the  words,  "As  long  as  it  was 
morning  and  the  sacred  day  waxed. ' '  This  would 
seem  to  indicate  the  end  of  the  morning,  a  time 
near  noon.  The  battle  then  beginning  continued 
through  long  stretches  of  intense  and  apparently 
protracted  fighting.  Then  we  are  suddenly  told, 
five  books  later  (II  775),  "As  long  as  the  sun 
bestrode  the  center  of  the  heaven."  The  actual 
time  marked  between  the  end  of  the  morning  and 
the  beginning  of  the  afternoon  could  hardly  be 
more  than  five  hours,  yet  the  fighting  which  has 
been  pictured  as  falling  in  that  interval  seems 
almost  endless.  The  manner  of  Homeric  recita- 
tion made  it  impossible  for  the  poet  to  picture 
events  as  taking  place  simultaneously,  so  that  he 
never  leaves  one  scene  and  moves  to  another  by 
saying,  "While  these  things  were  done  here,  such 
other  things  happened  there.' '  He  always  seems 
to  say,  "After  these  things  were  done  here,  those 
things  were  done  there.' ' 

At  the  opening  of  the  Odyssey  the  poet  tells 
how  the  gods  planned  to   send  Hermes  to  the 


THE  0<  >NTRADICTI0N8  169 

island  of  Calypso  in  order  thai  he  mighl  deli 

to  her  the  divine  decree  to  send  Odysseus  on  his 

way  to  Ithaca.    As  soon  as  the  i:*n\>  had  made 

this  decision,  Athena  herself  honied  to  Ithaca  In 

Bel   affairs  there   in  order,  to  encourage   Tele- 

machus,  and  to  prepare  for  the  return  of  <  i 

seus.  This  visit  of  Athena  and  its  consequent 
iill  about  four  books  and  we  almost  lose  Bight  of 
the  results  of  the  deliberation  of  the  gods  with 
which  the  poem  began.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  book  the  poet  had  his  choice  of  picturing 
Hermes  as  going  to  Calypso  while  Athena  was  at 
Ithaca,  or  of  starting  his  poem  all  over  again. 
The  second  method  was  the  one  the  poet  chose. 
The  gods  were  again  assembled,  and  Hermes  was 
again  ordered  to  bear  to  Calypso  the  unerring 
command  of  the  gods.  A  like  problem  confronted 
the  poet  who  described  the  long  series  of  battles 
which  followed  on  the  day  after  the  fruitless 
efforts  of  the  embassy  to  induce  Achilles  to  aban- 
don  his  wrath.  He  had  the  choice  of  prolonging 
the  day  or  of  dividing  the  battles  with  the  exploits 
of  another  night.  He  had  already  pictured  a  night 
with  crowded  events,  an  assembly,  an  embassy  to 
Achilles,  and  the  exploits  of  Diomede  and  ( )dys- 
seus,  so  that  he  would  hardly  care  to  fill  a  second 
night  with  kindred  or  rival  incidents,  hence  pro- 
longed the  day  and  crowded  a  mass  of  action 
between  late  morning  and  early  afternoon.  The 
verses  describing  this  day's  fighting  number 
about  five  thousand,  or  almost  one  third  of  the 


160  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

entire  Iliad,  so  that  the  bard  could  hardly  have 
recited  it  in  fewer  than  five  separate  appear- 
ances. This  fact  would  make  it  most  difficult  for 
the  hearers  to  notice  that  all  these  events  belonged 
to  the  same  day,  or  that  too  much  had  been 
crowded  into  the  few  hours  of  midday.  The 
multitude  of  events  assigned  to  this  one  day  is 
a  part  of  that  poetic  economy  which  chose  to 
lengthen  the  day  rather  than  to  prolong  the  poem 
by  creating  and  describing  the  events  of  another 
night  on  the  battle-field  under  exactly  the  same 
conditions  as  obtained  on  the  night  before. 

Many  things  in  Homer  are  done  for  a  poetic 
purpose  and  when  that  poetic  purpose  is  once 
achieved,  the  matter  itself  is  forgotten.  In  book 
four  the  poet  desired  some  act  of  treachery  by 
which  the  oaths  should  be  broken  and  the  Trojans 
made  to  bear  the  blame,  hence  the  shooting  of 
Menelaus  by  Pandarus.  This  act  was  not  intended 
to  hurt  Menelaus,  except  in  so  far  as  some  such 
an  act  was  necessary  to  break  the  truce  and  put 
the  Trojans  in  the  light  of  perjurers.  This  pur- 
pose was  gained  by  the  mere  fact  of  the  wound, 
so  that  as  soon  as  the  battle  was  started,  a  battle 
due  to  this  treachery,  the  wound  had  no  further 
poetic  purpose  and  Menelaus  became  entirely  well. 
He  even  offered  to  accept  the  challenge  which 
Hector  had  made  to  the  best  of  the  Greeks  to 
engage  in  a  single  combat,  and  that,  too,  without 
a  thought  of  the  wound  he  had  received  but  a  few 
hours  before.    In  book  eleven  the  great  warriors, 


THE  CONTRADICTIONS  161 

Agamemnon,   Diomede,  and  Odysseus,  were  all 
so  seriously  wounded  that  they  were  forced  to 

retire  from  action.  Thev  were  wounded  for  tfa 
very  purpose,  that  they  Bhould  retire  and  th 
make  it  possible  tor  [lector  to  strike  terror  into 
tlie  hearts  of  the  Greeks,  to  draw  1'atroclus  into 
the  struggle,  and  by  his  death  to  give  Achilles  a 
fitting  occasion  for  abandoning  his  wrath  and 
returning  to  the  combat. 

These  men  were  wounded  for  a  temporary 
poetic  purpose,  and  when  that  purpose  had  been 
gained  they  came  back  fully  recovered.  Diomede, 
although  he  had  been  shot  through  the  foot,  was 
able  in  but  three  days  to  take  two  prizes  in  the 
games.  Odysseus,  even  though  he  had  been  so 
badlv  wounded  in  the  side  that  his  ribs  were 
exposed,  yet  competed  in  the  wrestling  match,  the 
worst  possible  thing  for  sore  ribs;  and  he  won 
the  foot  race,  defeating  even  the  swift-footed 
Antilochus.  The  wound  of  Menelaus  lasted  only 
long  enough  to  effect  the  breaking  of  the  truce 
and  to  convict  the  Trojans  of  treachery;  and  the 
other  three  nursed  their  wounds  until  Achilles 
came  back  into  action.  With  the  breaking  of  the 
truce,  Menelaus  completely  recovered;  with  the 
return  of  Achilles,  the  wounds  of  Agamemnon, 
Diomede,  and  Odysseus  were  Immediately  healed. 
A  second  reason  for  the  wounding  of  these  heroes 
is  that  it  would  be  a  balm  to  Greek  pride  to  know 
that  Hector  could  accomplish  little  so  long  as 
these  men  remained  on  the  field. 


162  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Many  contradictions  depend  upon  the  changed 
attitude  or  state  of  mind  of  the  speaker.  Achilles 
in  book  nine  rejected  with  dignified  anger  the 
appeal  of  the  ambassadors,  telling  them  how  dear 
Briseis  was  to  him,  how  much  he  loved  her.  In 
this  scene  Achilles  imagined  that  his  great  anger 
because  of  the  insult  offered  him  by  Agamemnon 
was  due  to  his  passion  for  Briseis ;  but  when  later, 
because  of  the  death  of  Patroclus,  his  anger  had 
been  turned  to  remorse,  he  exclaimed:  "If  only 
Artemis  had  slain  her  on  the  very  day  I  captured 
her  city"  (T  59).  The  first  speech  was  that  of  a 
man  in  anger ;  the  second  the  speech  of  that  same 
man  in  remorse  because  of  the  results  of  that 
anger.  If  the  second  passage  stood  without  the 
first,  half  of  its  effect  would  be  lost.  Again  in 
the  same  book  Achilles  told  the  ambassadors  that 
Hector  never  dared  leave  the  walls  of  Troy  while 
he  himself  was  fighting,  yet  Agamemnon  had  tried 
to  dissuade  Menelaus  from  meeting  Hector  in 
single  combat  on  the  ground  that  even  Achilles 
hesitated  to  meet  Hector  in  battle.  The  words 
used  by  Achilles  in  the  passage  quoted  were 
spoken  in  disparagement  of  the  Greeks.  The 
exaggerated  praise  of  Hector  in  the  mouth  of 
Agamemnon  was  intended  to  discourage  and 
frighten  Menelaus. 

Finally  there  are  contradictions  which  may 
be  termed  temporal  contradictions,  such  as  the 
fact  that  in  the  tenth  year  of  the  war  Helen  points 
out  to  Priam  the  leaders  of  the  Greeks,  and  he 


THE  CONTRADICTION 

docs  not   know  them  or  their  names;  also  that  a 
wall  to  protect  the  camp  is  not  built   until  so  lal 
in  the   war;   and,   lastly,   the   arrival   of   so   many 

Trojan  allies  after  the  war  has  already  continued 

for  more  than  nine  years. 

We  may  assume  the  following  background  for 

the  war  of  the  Iliad:17  The  Greeks,  in  large  num- 
bers and  well-prepared,  came  to  attack  Troy.  The 
Trojans,  protected  by  the  strong  walls  of  their 
citadel,  refused  to  meet  the  foe  in  the  open  field, 
and  contented  themselves  with  occasional  sallies 
on  the  camp  or  against  scattered  divisions  of  the 
enemy.  Their  plan  was  much  like  that  of  Pericles 
in  the  earlv  vears  of  the  Peloponnesian  War. 
Supplies  came  regularly  into  the  beleaguered 
city,  and  the  Greeks  seemed  unable  to  capture 
it  by  storm  or  to  reduce  it  by  starvation.  After 
several  years  of  this  vain  effort  the  Greeks 
realized  that  Troy  could  not  be  taken  so  long  as 
she  kept  her  communications  in  the  rear  open, 
and  they  determined  to  cut  them.  This  resulted 
in  the  " Great  Foray,"  in  which  Briseis  and 
Chryseis  became  spoils  of  war.  The  Greek 
were  already  in  control  of  the  sea  and  now  that 
they  were  able  to  intercept  or  threaten  supplies 
coming  by  land,  Troy  must  fight  or  fall,  and  thus 
for  the  first  time  she  called  upon  her  allies. 
Since  the  ability  to  withstand  a  siege  when  pro- 
tected by  such  impregnable  walls  as  those  of  Troy 
depended  on  the  presence  of  supplies,  it  was  to 

17  This  is  based  largely  on  Leaf's  Troy. 


164  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

the  interest  of  the  invested  city  to  have  as  few 
as  possible  to  feed.  Had  she  summoned  her  allies 
while  she  was  still  pursuing  the  defensive  policy, 
she  would  have  hastened  her  own  ruin  and  would 
have  brought  upon  herself  the  very  calamity 
Lysander  brought  upon  Athens  after  the  victory 
at  Aegospotami. 

But  this  defensive  policy  had  to  be  abandoned 
when  once  they  were  cut  off  from  the  source  of 
supplies  and  they  must  summon  reinforcements. 
This  explains  why  Rhesus  and  so  many  others 
had  just  arrived  or  were  arriving  to  assist  the 
Trojans  during  the  action  of  the  Iliad.  The 
exhausted  resources  of  the  Trojans  and  the  re- 
sulting presence  of  their  allies  caused  a  complete 
change  in  the  plans  of  the  war,  for  the  Greeks  were 
no  longer  the  attacking  army  but  the  attacked. 
The  real  cause  of  this  change  was  the  success  of 
the  Greek  efforts  in  forcing  the  Trojans  into 
starvation,  but  the  poet  hides  the  true  reason 
under  the  poetic  device  of  the  " Wrath.' '  This 
was  put  at  just  the  time  when  the  economic  dis- 
tress forced  the  Trojans  to  assume  the  aggressive. 
With  this  change  of  policy  the  Greeks  must  pre- 
pare, not  for  attack,  but  for  defense,  hence  the 
necessity  for  building  the  wall  and  digging  the 
great  ditch.  The  wall  would  have  been  of  little 
use  during  the  earlier  years  of  the  war,  but  now, 
with  the  Trojans  desperate  and  reinforced  by 
their  allies,  and  all  determined  to  fight,  the  camp 
of  the  Greeks  must  be  protected. 


THE   CONTRADICTIONS  Li 

It  was  the  unexpected  proweM  of  the  Trojai 

but  above  all  the  sudden  presence  of  the  allie 
that  crushed  the  spirit  of  Agamemnon.    After  the 

siege  had  been  pressed  for  ten  years  be  found  the 
Trojans  suddenly  strengthened  This  unantici- 
pated accession  of  allied  forces  explains  his  words 
of  disappointment  (B  130)  :  "But  allies  from  many 
cities  are  here,  who  baffle  me  greatly  and  thwart 
my  efforts  to  sack  the  well-walled  city  Troy/' 
Just  when  he  thought  the  siege  had  ruined  the 
power  of  the  enemy  and  that  the  Trojans  were 
his  only  antagonists  he  found  that  his  hopes  were 
baffled  by  the  arrival  of  the  allies.  Immediately 
the  whole  aspect  of  things  was  changed;  the 
Greeks  who  had  been  thinking  only  of  the  ruin 
of  the  Trojans  were  forced  to  provide  for  their 
own  safety,  a  wall  w^as  built,  pickets  were  posted, 
spies  sent  out,  and  military  tactics  were  adopted, 
as  if  it  were  indeed  the  beginning  of  the  war. 
Many  events,  such  as  the  muster  of  the  troops, 
the  report  of  the  Trojan  picket  on  the  numbers 
of  the  Greeks,  the  duel  between  Paris  and  Mene- 
laus,  the  view  from  the  walls,  do  not  strictly 
belong  to  the  tenth  year  of  the  war;  but  the 
poet  must  give  some  impression  of  the  appear- 
ance of  the  army  and  of  the  tactics  employed,  of 
the  regal  bearing  of  Agamemnon,  of  the  beauty 
of  Helen,  and  of  her  mental  attitude  toward  her 
present  and  her  former  husband.  Since  he  did 
not  describe  the  earlier  years  of  the  war  the  poet 
must  insert  them  in  the  only  part  he  did  describe. 


166  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Homer's  plan  of  crowding  all  the  events  of  the 
poem  into  the  space  of  a  few  days  did  not  permit 
him  to  picture  both  ends  of  a  long  war,  hence 
scenes  are  put  into  the  last  few  days  which  in  a 
prose  narrative  would  have  come  much  earlier.18 

Shakespeare,  in  the  advice  given  by  Polonius 
to  his  son,  Laertes,  furnishes  a  perfect  parallel  to 
these  inconsistencies.  That  young  man  had  long 
been  in  France,  whence  he  returned  to  Denmark 
that  he  might  be  present  at  the  coronation.  Yet, 
when  he  was  on  the  point  of  going  back,  his  father 
told  him  how  to  dress  in  France,  and  added  many 
details  of  conduct,  as  if  he  were  leaving  Denmark 
for  the  first  time.  No  doubt  this  scene  from 
Hamlet  would  have  better  suited  the  first  home- 
leaving  of  Laertes,  but  as  that  fell  outside  the 
limits  of  the  poem  the  poet  must  either  insert  it 
here  or  omit  it  altogether. 

It  was  on  the  basis  of  such  contradictions  as 
have  been  given  that  Lachmann  and  all  his  fol- 
lowers erected  the  theory  that  Homer  originally 
consisted  of  a  mass  of  small  songs  which  a  learned 
commission  later  grouped  around  a  central  theme, 
and  this  commission  could  not  or  would  not  re- 
shape these  songs  so  as  to  remove  the  contradic- 
tions. There  are  two  proofs,  among  many,  which 
seem  to  me  to  make  the  idea  that  Homer  origi- 
nated by  the  collection  of  independent  songs  im- 
possible: first,  the  manner  in  which  the  different 
actors  are  introduced,  and,  second,  the  description 

18 ''Assumed  Duration  of  the  War  of  the  Iliad,"  Class.  Phil., 
VIII,  445. 


THE  CONTRADICTIONS  U 

of  the  different  persons  w!  the  variovi 

gods  assume. 

Bomer  has  two  methods  of  introdncing  his 
acton  i  first,  he  gives  a  fairly  detailed  introduction 
at  the  time  of  their  first  appearance,  or,  second, 
an  actor  appears  with  no  introduction  but  l"s 
name,  then  disappears,  to  be  given  later  a  de- 
tailed introduction  just  before  he  begins  to  play 
an  important  part  in  the  action  of  the  poem 
When  Nestor  first  appeared  he  was  introduced 
thus : 

Then    Nestor   the   sweet-voiced   arose,   the   eloquent 
orator  of  the   men   of  Pylos,   from  whose   Lips   speech 

sweeter  than  honey  flowed.  Two  generations  of  men  had 
come  and  gone  since  he  was  born,  and  now  he  was  ruling 
over  the  third. 

This  lengthy  description  shows  that  he  is  to  have 
a  prominent  part  in  the  poem.  He  is  formally 
introduced  nowhere  else,  so  that  when  he  appears 
in  any  other  part  of  Homer  it  is  always  as  a  leader 
who  is  perfectly  well-known.  When  Briseis  first 
moves  across  the  stage  she  is  only  a  mute  figur 
hence  there  is  no  detailed  introduction,  but  lie 

leaves  the  scene  we  are  confident  that  she  will  r 
appear  and  we  shall  learn  more  about  her.  When 
she  comes  on  again  (T  287),  we  learn  that  she  is  a 
widow  whose  husband  fell  at  the  hands  of  Achilles, 
who  also  slew  her  three  brothers  and  destroy,. 1  her 
city  at  the  time  he  slew  her  husband.  In  a  similar 
manner  Patroclus  comes  on  the  Btage  and  walks 
awav  in  silence,  and  with  no  introduction,  but  he, 
too,  will  reappear  and  be  introduced  (A  770)  be- 


168  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

fore  lie  takes  a  prominent  part  in  the  poem.  The 
first  book  was  so  crowded  with  excitement  that 
Briseis  and  Patroclus  remained  mute  and  waited 
for  a  lull  in  the  action,  and  waited  also  to  be  intro- 
duced until  they  were  to  take  a  prominent  place 
on  the  center  of  the  stage. 

Exactly  similar  is  the  method  of  the  Odyssey. 
When  Eurycleia  comes  on,  we  are  told  her  name, 
the  name  of  her  father,  and  of  her  father 's  father, 
how  she  came  into  the  family  of  Odysseus,  and 
what  price  had  been  paid  for  her.  This  detailed 
introduction  points  to  the  prominent  part  she  is 
to  take  in  the  later  events  of  the  poem.  She  is 
introduced  thus  only  here;  in  the  subsequent 
books  she  comes  and  goes  as  one  perfectly  well- 
known  to  the  hearers.  The  method  of  her  intro- 
duction is  similar  to  that  by  which  Nestor  was 
brought  before  the  hearers  of  the  Iliad.  In  the 
earlier  poem  Briseis  and  Patroclus  came  on  as 
mutes  to  be  introduced  in  later  books.  So  the 
first  reference  to  the  swineherd  is  in  a  chance 
remark  that  "The  suitors  supposed  that  Tele- 
machus  was  out  in  the  fields  with  the  flocks,  or 
perhaps  he  might  be  with  the  swineherd. '  '19  The 
poet  gives  no  inkling  of  who  the  swineherd  is 
when  he  is  mentioned  for  the  first  time,  since  he 
is  not  to  act  for  several  days,  but  before  he  begins 
to  take  a  prominent  part  we  are  told  the  story 
of  his  life  and  how  it  happens  that  so  fine  a  spirit 
should  be  found  in  a  bondsman.20 

ieS  640.  20  0  403. 


THE  CONTRADICTIONS 

Had  the  formal  and  detailed  introduction 

Nestor,  Patroohis,  Burycleia,  and  Enmaetu  been 

Lven  in  Beveral  books  ire  ooold  believe  that  the 

various   introductions    belonged   to   independent 
Bongs;  bn1  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  there  was  a 

group  of  Mich   independent    BOngS,   that    the  Bame 
actor    should    appear    in    several    BOngS,    but    hy 

accident  no  two  sun^s  giifl  a  detailed  introduction 
of  the  same  person.  Such  heroes  as  Achilles, 
Ajax,  and  others  of  the  first  rank  were  known  to 
the  poet's  audience  from  tradition  and  therefore 
needed  no  formal  introduction.  The  description 
Helen  gave  to  Priam  of  the  different  leader 
viewed  from  the  walls  of  Troy  was  not  an  intro- 
duction but  an  effort  on  the  part  of  the  poet  to 
picture  the  regal  bearing  of  Agamemnon  or  the 
characteristic  traits  of  the  others  there  described. 
Even  more  convincing  is  the  fact  that  when- 
ever a  god  appears  in  the  form  of  a  definite  and 
named  person,  a  detailed  description  is  always 
added  unless  the  god  appears  in  the  form  of  a 
person  who  has  already  been  described  or  who 
has  previously  appeared  in  the  action  of  the 
poem.  When  the  god  does  appear  in  the  form 
of  a  person  who  has  already  lien  introduced, 
then  there  is  no  description  of  that  person."  The 
two  following  examples  will  illustrate  the  prin- 
ciple: Poseidon  in  N  45  appeared  to  the  Greeks 
in  the  form  of  Calchas,  with  no  explanation  of 
who   Calchas   was;   but   as   Calchas    had   already 

21  "Phoenix   in   the   Iliad,"   American  Journal    of   Philology, 
XXXIII,  68. 


170  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

been  introduced  and  had  taken  part  in  the  action 
of  the  poem,  no  introduction  was  necessary.  Iris, 
in  the  second  book,  came  to  the  Trojans  to  warn 
them  of  the  advance  of  the  Greeks,  assuming  the 
form  of  Polites,  the  son  of  Priam,  who  sat  as  a 
picket  for  the  Trojans,  trusting  in  the  fleetness 
of  his  feet.  Polites,  whose  form  the  divinity 
assumed,  had  not  been  previously  named,  hence 
the  detailed  introduction.  The  fact  that  in  all  the 
numerous  appearances  of  some  god  under  human 
form  the  person  whose  likeness  the  god  assumes 
is  invariably  described,  unless  that  person  has 
already  been  introduced,  but,  if  that  person  has 
been  thus  introduced,  no  description  is  ever 
added,  can  not  be  explained  on  any  theory  of  edit- 
ing independent  songs,  but  must  be  due  to  a  single 
plan  and  a  single  author.22 

This  principle  cannot  be  the  result  of  mere 
chance  or  accident,  for  there  are  sixteen  different 
persons  whose  form  the  gods  assume  in  the  Iliad 
alone.  This  law  shows  also  that  the  parts  or  books 
of  the  poems  must  have  been  composed  in  much 
the  same  order  as  we  now  have  them.  So  far  as  I 
know  this  principle  escaped  the  notice  of  all  the 
earlier  scholars  or  editors,  hence  it  is  impossible 
to  assume  that  Homer  was  rewritten  by  later 
bards  or  compilators  to  bring  the  songs  in  har- 
mony therewith.  These  two  facts,  that  people 
are  not  introduced  twice  and  that  when  gods 
assume  the  forms  of  men,  the  men  are  always 

22  All  the  examples  are  printed  in  full  in  the  Am.  Jour,  of 
Phil.,  XXXIII,  69  ff. 


TIIK    CONTRA  DICTIONS  171 

described  unless  they  have  acted  previously,  and 
if  they  have  acted  previously  are  never  described, 
show  convincingly  that  the  poems  of  Homer  were 

Conceived  as  wholes,  and  arc  not  due  to  tin*  grad 
ual    composition    of   independent    BOIlgB,    whether 
these  songs  were  composed  by  various  bards  or 
by   Homer  himself. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  INDIVIDUALIZATION  OF  GODS  AND 

HEROES 

Pope  begins  the  Preface  to  his  translation  of 
the  Iliad  with  these  words :  "  Homer  is  universally 
allowed  to  have  had  the  greatest  invention  of  any 
writer  whatever. "  A  part  of  that  invention  is 
the  ability  to  create  characters  independent  of 
their  author,  who  speak  and  act  as  if  from  their 
own  volition  with  no  regard  for  the  opinions  or 
prejudices  of  the  one  who  created  them. 

Homer  and  Shakespeare,  beyond  all  others, 
called  into  being  actors  who  speak  and  live  in  such 
a  detached  manner  that  we  can  form  no  justified 
conclusions  from  them  in  regard  to  the  sentiments 
of  the  poets  themselves.  Even  in  Shakespeare 
there  does  not  seem  to  be  absolute  detachment, 
for  the  ruin  which  ultimately  comes  to  the  villains 
in  his  dramas  seems  intended  to  illustrate  a  moral 
tale.  In  the  great  work  of  Cervantes  we  can  trace 
his  religious  beliefs ;  and  the  story  he  tells  of  the 
young  Moslem  maiden  who  deserted  her  kind  and 
thoughtful  father  because  of  her  change  of  faith, 
shows  an  almost  limitless  intolerance  in  those 
beliefs.  Most  editors  of  Cervantes  reconstruct  his 
biography  from  indications  found  in  his  own  writ- 


GODS  AND  EBB01  IT:', 

ings.    This  is  brae,  also,  of  Dante,  whose  worl 
reveal  his  hates,  his  loves,  and  his  hope,1  so  th 

his  writings  also  famish  the  besl   sources  for  hi 

biography.  Bimyaii  had  the  power  to  individual- 
ize characters,  hut  all  of  them   reveal  the  OOnvi 

tions  of  Banyan;  while  in  Byron  the  Bpeaker  ii 
always  voicing  the  ideas  of  Byron  and  never 
becomes  detached.  Bomer,  however,  has  so  indi- 
vidualized his  characters  thai  they  move  in  his 

poetry  and  live  in  history  as  independent  beings, 
who  speak  their  own  thoughts,  not  Homer's,  and 
perform  their  own  acts.  He  does  not  attempt  to 
justify  the  ways  of  God  to  man,  nor  to  show 
that  righteousness  leads  to  happiness,  and  sin  to 
misery  and  shame. 

The  two  noblest  characters  of  the  Iliad  meet 
their  death  directly  or  indirectly  by  the  treachery 
or  cruelty  of  the  gods.  Phoebus  Apollo,  concealed 
in  a  cloud,  stole  behind  Patroclus  and,  smiting 
him,  left  him  helpless  in  the  presence  of  his  foe. 
Pallas  Athena  came  to  Hector  in  the  guise  of  his 
brother,  induced  him  to  face  the  antagonist  by 
assuring  him  of  her  help,  then  revealed  herself 
as  a  cruel  impostor  by  treacherously  helping 
Achilles;  and  she  showed  no  mercy  to  the  gallant 
warrior  whom  she  thus  lured  to  destruction. 
Though  Patroclus  and  Hector  die,  Paris  surviv. 
When  the  story  of  the  Iliad  ends  he  is  still  in 
possession  of  Helen,  free  from  remorse,  and 
rather  glad   to  be   rid   of   his   virtuous   brother, 

i  Professor  deSalvio,  "Danto  and  Medieval  Heresy,"  Bomanic 
Eeview,  1920,  239  ff. 


174  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

whose  nobility  and  speech  alike  reproached  him. 
Achilles  received  misery  and  not  blessedness  for 
his  bravery,  lamenting  in  Hades  the  rash  choice 
he  had  made  when  he  chose  a  short  life  with  glory 
in  preference  to  a  long  and  ignoble  .career.  For 
these  reasons  I  am  unable  to  accept  the  thesis  of 
J.  Denton  Snider  in  his  really  able  book  (Homer's 
Iliad,  p.  497) :  "We  have  an  attempt  on  the  poet's 
part  to  set  forth  the  idea  and  the  workings  of  a 
Providential  Order  in  the  affairs  of  men"  or  in 
the  statement  of  Wood  (p.  235) :  "Homer's  great 
object  was  to  make  mankind,  and  especially  his 
countrymen,  wiser  and  better."  Similar  ideas 
permeate  and  vitiate  the  Homeric  writings  of 
Gladstone.  The  gods  whom  Homer  pictures  are 
not  the  gods  he  worshipped;  they  are  poetic  cre- 
ations whom  Homer  adapted  to  his  own  needs 
without  fear  and  evidently  without  reverence. 

The  following  illustrations  will  suffice  to  show 
that  the  poet  of  the  Iliad  was  not  trying  to  arouse 
a  feeling  of  affection'  or  reverence  for  the  divine 
beings.  Whenever  a  Greek  or  a  Trojan  was 
wounded  or  slain  in  battle  he  never  uttered  a  word 
of  complaint.  Patroclus  died  with  a  taunt  to 
Hector  that  he  need  not  boast,  for  his  days  are 
numbered  and  he  will  soon  die  at  the  hands  of 
Achilles.  When  Hector  meets  his  fate  he,  too, 
taunts  Achilles  with  that  death  which  is  awaiting 
him.  Two  gods  were  wounded  in  the  narrative 
of  the  Iliad,  Aphrodite  and  Ares.  When  Aphro- 
dite received  a  slight  wound  on  the  wrist,  she 


GODS  and  EBBOl  it:, 

rushed  from  tin*  battle,  "wailing  loudly,"  n*'ya 
u/^ouo-a,  oame  to  Ares,  told  him  < > t*  her  terrible 
Bufferings,  My*  ax^o^ai  zxkck,  got  into  his  chariot 
in  awful  anguish,  (^vx€^ti'^  hurried  to  Olympus, 
threw  herself  into  her  mother's  .-inns,  and  t « >  1 « 1 
her  pitiful  Btory.  Eer  mother  tried  to  console 
her  by  telling  a  tale  of  the  w<       the  godfl  had 

undergone  at  the  hands  of  mortal  men  — tliat  even 
Ares  had  heen  put  in  a  brazen  J ii.lt  and  been  kept 
there  for  full  thirteen  month-.     This  same  Ai 

the  god  of  battles,  appeared  on  the  battlefield  and 

was  wounded  by  the  human  warrior,  Diomed 
He  bellowed,  eZ^a^e,  as  loudly  as  nine  or  ten  thou- 
sand men  shout  in  battle,  then  rushed  to  Olympus 
where  he  told  his  woes  to  father  Zeus,  who  showed 
him  no  pity,  but  roundly  berated  him,  instead. 
Earlv  in  the  fourth  book  of  the  Iliad  Zeus  seemed 

■ 

ger  to  bring  the  war  to  an  immediate  conclusion, 
so  that  Troy  might  remain  standing  and  Eelen 
return  to  her  home,  and  a  general  reconciliation 
follow.     To  this  fair  proposal  Hera  replied  in  the 

most  bitter  anger  that  Troy  must  perish  and  Zeus 

must  not  permit  the  piety  of  Priam  and  Priam's 
people  to  thwart  her  purposes;  that,  if  Zeus  will 
surrender  to  her  vengeance  a  righteous  people 
whom  he  loves,  she,  in  turn,  will  hand  over  to  his 
will  the  cities  she  loves  most  of  all.  ArgOS,  Sparta, 
and  Mycenae — a  brutality  never  surpassed  on 
earth,  vet  rivaled  when  Antony,  Augustus,  and 
Lepidus  turned  over  their  friends  to  be  murdered 
in  return  for  the  privilege  of  slaying  their  foe& 


176  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

This  ignoble  conception  of  the  gods  is  uni- 
form throughout  all  parts  of  Homeric  poetry.  In 
the  first  book  of  the  Iliad  Zeus  is  pictured  as  a 
bully  in  his  own  home,  who  hurled  his  son  from 
the  threshold  of  Olympus,  because  that  son  had 
tried  to  shield  his  mother  from  one  of  the  father's 
savage  attacks;  in  B  Zeus  beguiled  Agamemnon 
by  means  of  a  lying  dream ;  in  T  Aphrodite  showed 
herself  to  Helen  as  a  most  base  and  cruel  goddess ; 
in  A  Athena  induced  Pandarus  to  violate  the  oaths, 
then  assisted  in  bringing  about  his  death  for  the 
very  baseness  of  which  she  was  the  cause;  in  E 
Aphrodite  and  Ares  played  most  ignoble  roles; 
in  H  Zeus  allowed  himself  to  be  turned  from  his 
purposes  by  his  carnal  desires  and  when  in  Y  the 
gods  met  to  fight,  it  was  a  farce  beneath  the  dig- 
nity of  the  most  ignoble  warriors  of  the  poem. 
In  the  Odyssey  again  the  wanderings  of  the  hero 
largely  depended  on  the  anger  of  Poseidon,  which 
had  been  aroused  because  Odysseus  had  dared  to 
defend  himself  against  that  god's  cannibal  son; 
Athena  was  ever  ready  to  lie  or  to  deceive;  and 
Ares  and  Aphrodite  were  as  adulterous  in  this 
poem  as  they  had  been  inglorious  in  the  Iliad. 

In  either  poem  the  gods  could  take  on  any  form 
they  chose;  they  could  assume  not  only  the  char- 
acter of  men  but  the  shapes  of  animals  as  well. 
This  identity  of  conception  is  well  illustrated  by 
Athena.  Twice  she  assumed  the  character  of  a 
herald,  in  B  280,  when  she  assisted  in  bringing  the 
Greeks  to  silence,  and  in  0  8,  when  she  helped 


>g  AND  BEBOBS  177 

Alcinous  gather  the  people  together  to  welcome 
the  Btranger.  Similarly,  in  r]  "J",  in  the  guise  of 
a  maiden  carrying  a  pitcher,  she  met  Odyssetu 
and  directed  him  to  the  palace  of  Alcinons.     In 

H  5!>,  taking  the  form  of  an  ospivy,  she  sat  on  a 

tree  and  watched   the  combat    between    Sector 

and  Ajax.  In  x  240  she  looked  down  upon  the 
slaughter  of  the  suitors  as  she  sat,  in  the  form  of 
a  swallow,  on  a  beam  in  the  hall.  The  conception 
of  the  gods  is  the  same  in  all  parts  of  both  poems, 
except  that  in  a  time  of  war  the  gods  always  seem 
more  in  evidence  and  more  cruel.  The  Homeric 
gods  are  not  superior  beings  who  reward  virtue 
in  others  or  practice  it  themselves.  They  are  only 
occasionally  sublime  and  rarely  deserve  reverence 
or  affection. 

We  can  in  a  rough  way  construct  a  Homeric 
mythology7,  but  we  do  not  have  the  materials  for 
appraising  the  religious  element  in  Homer.  It 
is  fortunate  for  our  civilization  that  the  early 
teachers  and  theologians  of  the  Hebrews  were 
prophets  and  not  poets.  The  halls  of  Olympus 
would  have  resounded  with  peals  of  "Homeric 
laughter"  had  Zeus  laid  down  a  code  of  laws 
which  contained  such  a  sentence  as:  "Honor  thy 
father  and  thy  mother,' '  for  all  knew  too  well 
what  he  had  done  to  his  own  father  Cronos; 
or  such  a  sentence  as  "Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery,"  when  they  all  knew  the  scandals  of 
his  many  amours.  Most  of  the  divinities  would 
have  been  conscientious  nullificationists  if  there 


178  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

had  been  any  interdict  on  lying,  covetousness, 
and  stealing.  Yet  in  the  face  of  these  gods  the 
Homeric  Greeks  honored  their  parents,  and  lived 
decent  as  well  as  honest  lives. 

No  one  has  ever  more  thoroughly  grasped  the 
meaning  of  the  Homeric  gods  than  Pope,  who 
gives  this  sensible  opinion  in  his  Preface: 

If  Homer  was  not  the  first  who  introduced  the 
deities,  as  Herodotus  imagines,  into  the  religion  of 
Greece,  he  seems  to  be  the  first  who  brought  them  into 
a  machinery  for  poetry,  and  such  a  one  as  makes 
its  greatest  dignity  and  importance:  for  we  find  those 
authors  who  have  been  offended  at  the  literal  notion  of 
the  gods,  constantly  laying  their  accusation  against 
Homer  as  the  chief  support  of  it.  But  whatever  cause 
there  might  be  to  blame  his  machinery  in  a  philosophical 
or  religious  view,  they  are  so  perfect  in  the  poetic  that 
mankind  has  been  ever  since  contented  to  follow  them; 
none  have  been  able  to  enlarge  the  sphere  of  poetry 
beyond  the  limits  he  has  set :  every  attempt  of  this 
nature  has  proved  unsuccessful :  and  after  all  the  various 
changes  of  time  and  religions,  his  gods  continue  to  this 
day  the  gods  of  poetry. 

In  these  few  words  Pope  has  given  all  that  need 
be  said  about  Homeric  religious  beliefs.  Homer 
drew  the  portraits  of  his  gods  with  the  hand  of  a 
poet,  and  as  poetic  portraits  they  are  still  the 
delight  and  envy  of  poets.  It  is  to  misunderstand 
and  to  degrade  the  genius  of  the  poet  to  appraise 
him  as  a  teacher  of  ethics  or  of  religion.  Homer, 
in  spite  of  his  picture  of  the  gods,  may  have  been 
a  man  of  simple  faith,  for  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  ages  in  which  faith  seems  unquestioned 


ODS  AND  SBBOE 

are  generally  0u>6€  in  which  religious  beliefs  are 

most     broadly    caricatured;     Iicikt     travelers     to 

church  id  in  the  early  Middle  Agt       re 

often    shocked    by     the    farcical     illustrations    of 

Bible  stories. 

A  iter  having  glanced  at  Bomer's  gods  we  shall 
turn  to  his  men.    Eere  again  Pope  furnishes  jn 

the  necessarv  word-  : 

We  come  now  to  the  characters  of  his  penoos:  and 

here  we  shall  find  no  author  has  r  drawn  so  many, 
with  so  visible  and  so  surprising  a  variety,  or  given 
us  siu-h  lively  and  affecting  impressions  of  them.  Every- 
one has  something  so  singularly  his  own  that  no  paint-  r 
could  have  distinguished  them  more  by  their  featur- 
than  the  poet  has  by  their  manners. 

Perhaps  no  poet  has  ever  created  so  many  out- 
standing men  and  women  who  have  passed  into 
the  common  language  of  the  world.  Helen, 
Hecuba,  Andromache,  Penelope,  each  repre- 
sents a  different  aspect  oY  domestic  ltfe;  Ajax, 
Xestor,  Achilles,  Patroclus,  Odysseus,  Diomed 
Antilochus,  Hector,  were  all  warriors,  yet  each 
stands  for  something  distinct  and  individual, 
something  not  represented  by  the  other-.  These 
characters  do  not  represent  types,  abstract  ideas, 

but  human  beings,  each  with  his  own  life  and  his 
own  problems.  Xestor  is  not  the  personification 
of  the  wisdom  coming  from  1  g  experience,  Qor 
is  Ajax  the  embodiment  of  brute  f.  They  are 

all  men  showing  the  weakness  as  well  as  the 
strength  of  men. 


180  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

The  writers  of  other  Greek  epics  whose  work 
has  survived,  such  as  Quintus  and  Apollonius, 
seemed  unable  to  make  their  characters  real  and 
individual,  and  Vergil  notably  failed  in  creating 
characters  which  live.  " Pious' '  Aeneas  is  not 
regarded  as  a  type  of  the  virtue  which  the  poet 
desired  to  represent,  and  most  people  feel  a  sort 
of  contempt  for  the  hero  of  the  Aeneid.2  All  of 
Milton's  characters  fail  to  impress  us,  except 
perhaps  Satan  himself.  Certainly  Milton  would 
not  feel  complimented  if  he  knew  that  in  his  great 
poem,  written  to  "  justify  the  ways  of  God  to 
man,"  the  character  of  Satan  should  be  regarded 
as  his  greatest  success.  This  ability  to  indi- 
vidualize character  is  in  all  parts  of  Homer  and 
shows  itself  in  all  his  actors.  He  has  succeeded 
not  a  whit  better  with  Achilles  and  Hector  than 
with  Eumaeus,  the  swineherd,  Nausicaa,  and  the 
Cyclops,  or  even  with  the  dog,  Argus.  Each  is 
a  distinct  creation  and  as  worthy  his  creator  as 
any  of  the  rest. 

If  I  were  asked  to  pick  out  a  single  little  scene 
which  shows,  as  fully  as  a  single  scene  can  show, 
the  measure  of  the  poet's  greatness  in  the  sym- 
pathetic delineation  of  character,  that  scene  would 
be  the  few  verses  in  which  the  blinded  and  baffled 
Cyclops  takes  hold  of  the  ra.m  which  is  bearing 
to  a  place  of  safety  the  very  man  who  has  blinded 
him,  and  says : 

2  Macaulay  on  re-reading  Vergil  expressed  himself  as  greatly 
disappointed  by  the  inability  of  the  poet  to  give  human  char- 
acter to  his  actors.  Trevelyan,  Life  and  Letters  of  Macaulay, 
I,  329. 


OODfl  AND  BBBOE  1M 

Dear  ram,  why  is  it  thi        r  my  asks  yon  arc  thm 
coming  onl  of  the  cave  the  l.        ;'  the  flock? 
before  have  you  been  left  behind  by  th<-  others,  but 

Were   always   tin-    first    tO    gTSSe    upon    t  1m-    t-nd'-r   hlad'-s 

of  grass,  yon  were  the  first  to  come  to  the  itreami  i 

ater,  and  at  evening,  yon  wer         p  the  ft]  return 

to  th-'  fold.    Bui  now  yon  are  the  very  |;LSt.  I        it  be 
that  y.>u  Long  for  the  eye  of  your  master  1 

Eomer  could  not  create  or  represent  this  monster 

without    Creating    in    him    that    sentiment    which 

made  him  yearn  for  companionship  and  made  him 
feel  that  he  had  found  sympathy  in  the  breast 
this  ram.  How  gentle  the  heart  of  the  poet  who 
could  create  a  feeling  of  pity  for  this  cannibal 
Cyclops!  How  compassionate  the  poet  who  could 
also  feel  for  a  poor  old  neglected  dog,  that  had 
yearned  for  his  master  for  twenty  years,  then  at 
last  sees  him  coming  home,  only  to  die  of  a  broken 
heart— broken  with  joy! 

Others  might  think  the  choicest  cameo-like 
description  in  Homer  is  found  in  the  words  of 
lamentation  spoken  by  Briseis  over  the  dead  body 
of  Patroclus,  and  in  the  wise  comment  of  the  poet  : 
"Thus    she    spake    Weeping,    and    all    the    other 

women  joined  therein,  apparently  weeping  for 
Patroclus,  but  each  was  really  thinking  of  her 

own  sorrows. M  Xo  one  could  have  failed 
observe  at  funerals  that  they  weep  most  bitterly 
for  the  dead  who  have  in  their  own  lives  Buffered 
the  keenest  bereavement.  An  outstanding  proof 
of  the  genius  of  Homer  is  in  this,  that  he  makes 
no  effort  to  withhold  his  great  ideas  for  his  ^ivat 


182  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

characters  and  his  great  occasions,  and,  like  a  man 
drawing  water  from  the  ocean,  he  has  no  fear  of 
exhaustion,  no  need  to  practice  thrift. 

Homer's  power  to  create  and  individualize 
character  will  be  illustrated  in  detail  by  two  per- 
sons, selected  because  they  appear  in  both  poems, 
Helen  and  Odysseus. 

When  Homer  introduces  Helen  in  the  Iliad 
she  must  appear  so  lovely  and  so  beautiful  that 
it  will  seem  worth  the  effort  of  a  nation  to  carry 
on  a  long  war  for  her  sake,  and  this  must  be  the 
judgment  of  all.  But  this  is  difficult,  for  there  is 
a  great  diversity  in  what  is  esteemed  beautiful. 
One  admires  the  blonde,  another  the  brunette,  one 
a  plump  figure,  another  a  willowy  figure,  so  that 
in  praising  any  style  of  beauty  one  must  expect  to 
meet  with  adverse  opinion.  A  second  difficulty 
which  confronts  the  poet  lies  in  the  fact  that  Helen 
has  deserted  a  fine  husband  and  has  long  been 
living  in  adultery.  Homer  masters  all  these  dif- 
ficulties by  making  no  attempt  to  describe  her  and 
by  allowing  the  hearer  to  estimate  her  beauty  by 
the  effect  she  produces  on  others.  Helen  is  hard 
at  work  with  her  needle  when  she  is  told  that 
Paris  and  Menelaus  are  on  the  point  of  fighting 
a  duel  for  her  sake.  She  goes  at  once  modestly 
toward  the  walls  of  the  city,  from  which  there 
is  a  view  of  the  field  and  the  army,  and  finds  there 
the  old  men  of  Troy — men  who  had  suffered  much, 
men  who  had  lost  their  possessions  and  their 
kindred  for  her  sake,  men  too  old  to  be  moved 


AND  HBROB  183 

by    (he    siirht    of    ordinary    bean!  When    these 

afflicted  man  see  Eden  coming  toward  them  they 
have  not  a  word  of  reproach,  as  th<-\ 

another,  "It    is  no  wonder  that    tin-   Trojans   and 
the   (Jreekfl   have   long1  endured   mi  for   tin- 

Bake  of  such  a  woman,  sine.'  die  -  fail  &fl  the 

immortal  puis."     Priam  calls  to  her,  "hear  child, 
com.'  and  sit   near  me  so  that   von   mav  see  voiir 

former  husband,  your  kinsmen,  and  your  friends. 

r  I  hold  you  in  no  way  to  hlame.     It  is  the  godfl 

who  are  responsible. M    On  hearing  these  reassur- 
ing words,  Helen  replies  with  humility: 

Respected  art  thou  in  my  sight,  and  greatly  rever 

Oh  that   I  had  chosen  death  before  I  followed  thy 
hither.  Leaving  my  home,  my  friends,  my  darling  child, 
and   the    lovely   companionship    of   equak        But.    th 
things  were  not  to  be,  and  therefore   I   waste  away  in 
tears.     The  man  of  whom  you  ask  is  the  son  of  At  reus, 
the  wide-ruling  Agamemnon,  both  a  good  king  and  a 
mighty  warrior,  the  brother-in-law  of  poor  shameless  i 
if  it  is  not  all  a  dream. 

After  pointing  out  and  naming  various  lead' 
among  the  Greeks,  she  looks  throughout  the  army 
in  vain  for  two  and  savs: 

■ 

Inn  two  chieftains  of  the  people,  I     ■■  >r  and  I'M'. 
my  own  brothers,  I  cannot  see.    I        r  they  did  oofl  come 
from  divine  Lacedaemon,  or  else  they  have  indeed  fol- 

Lowed  the  army,  hut  are  unwilling  t<>  enter  the  rank- 

the  warriors.  f< taring  the  many  .  -  and  reproaches 

which  are  mine. 

Then  the  poet  adds:  "Thus  she  Bpake,  bni  already 
the  life-giving  earth  had  covered  them  there  in 

Lacedaemon,    in    their    own    native    land." 


184  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

pathos  of  the  thought  that  her  poor  brothers  did 
not  dare  to  join  their  fellows,  because  they  could 
not  endure  the  stories  of  her  shame,  makes  it  hard 
for  anyone  to  censure  her.  In  this  brief  intro- 
duction of  Helen  we  see  that  she  was  not  idling 
her  time  away,  but  was  hard  at  work;  that  she 
was  beautiful,  so  beautiful  that  even  the  men  who 
were  sorely  afflicted  could  not  blame  others  for 
waging  a  war  in  her  behalf ;  that  she  herself  was 
deeply  conscious  of  her  guilt,  did  not  put  the 
fault  on  others,  and  said  of  the  brother  of  her 
husband,  the  leader  of  the  forces  which  were 
warring  to  punish  her  own  and  Paris '  crime,  i  i  He 
is  both  a  good  king  and  a  mighty  warrior. ' '  After 
such  gracious  words  as  these  we,  like  the  old  men 
on  the  walls  of  Troy,  cannot  find  it  in  our  hearts 
to  chide  her. 

This  scene  shows  also,  by  the  definite  infor- 
mation which  Helen  has  retained  of  the  various 
Greek  generals,  that  she  is  a  woman  of  intellectual 
power.  Helen  is  no  silly  beauty,  but  she  is  as 
clever  as  she  is  fair.  After  Paris'  fiasco  in  the 
duel  with  Menelaus,  she  was  so  disgusted  with  him 
that  she  would  have  spurned  him  except  for  the 
brutal  intervention  and  the  threats  of  Aphrodite. 
Poor  Helen  said  to  the  goddess:  "I  cannot  go  to 
him,  it  would  be  a  shame,  and  all  the  women  of 
Troy  would  despise  me  forever.  I  am  sad  enough 
as  it  is. ' '  The  goddess  answered : ' '  Woman,  anger 
me  not,  lest  in  my  rage  I  abandon  thee,  and  my 
wrath  shall  be  as  ruthless  as  my  love  has  been 


1 1 


GODS   AM)  HKKOBfi  L85 

strong.  I  will  put  cruel  strife  between  the  Greeks 
and  the  Trojans,  and  thou  thyself  shah  perish  by 

an  evil  tat**. ' '    Under  such  greaJ  pi        ire,  1 1 «*l»*n 

can  hardly  l»c  blamed  for  yielding.    Later  during 

that  same  day  Hector  came  to  the  home  of  Pai 
in  order  that  he  might  shame  him  into  bravery. 
lleh-n  took  the  blame  upon  herself,  and  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  perhaps,  after  all,  she  and 
Paris  have  been  involved  in  this  evil  fate  that 
she  and  he  may  in  coming  ages  furnish  a  song  for 
generations  yet  unborn. 

After  the  death  of  Hector,  when  the  corpse  is 
brought  home,  she  takes  her  stand  beside  the  bier 
and  laments  him  thus : 

Hector,  thou  art  the  dearest  to  me  of  all  the  kins- 
men of  my  husband,  and  Paris  is  my  husband.  He  it 
was  who  brought  me  here  to  Troy.  0  that  I  had  died 
before  that  day.  Now  twenty  years  have  gone  since  I 
left  my  native  land.  In  all  these  years  I  have  heard  not 
one  harsh  or  cruel  word  from  thee,  and  even  when  others 
of  this  household  chided  me,  thou  wouldst  check  them 
with  thy  loving  kindness  and  thy  gentle  words.  I  in 
my  anguish  weep  for  thee  and  my  ill-fated  self,  for  no 
one  now  in  Troy  is  kind  to  me  and  they  gaze  at  me  witli 
angry  looks. 

Helen  appears  in  but  three  books  of  the  Iliad, 
and  each  time  her  stav  is  verv  brief.  She  is 
beautiful,  full  of  remorse,  but  she  thinks  only 
of  herself.  When  she  is  at  work  with  her  needle 
it  is  to  embroider  or  weave  scenes  of  those  battles 
which  had  been  fought  for  her  sake.  Even  the 
purpose  of  the  war  was  to  glorify  her  in  song, 
and  when  she  weeps  for  Hector,  she  is  thinking 
onlv  of  Helen. 


186  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Ten  years  elapse  before  we  see  her  again. 
Hard  as  it  was  for  the  poet  to  create  a  proper 
atmosphere  for  the  introduction  of  Helen  in  the 
Iliad,  the  difficulties  are  much  increased  in  the 
Odyssey.  In  these  ten  years  she  has  had  some- 
thing of  a  career.  Paris  was  slain,  she  was  taken 
over  by  Deiphobus,  and  then,  at  length,  fell  into 
the  arms  or  the  hands  of  her  outraged  husband, 
who  after  many  years  and  much  wandering 
brought  her  back  to  Sparta.  A  woman  of  such 
a  past  must  be  hard  to  restore  to  favor,  but — and 
this  is  quite  as  serious  in  the  sphere  of  beauty — 
she  is  also  ten  years  older;  thirty  years  have 
elapsed  since  she  eloped  with  Paris.  Homer  must 
recreate  the  spell  of  loveliness  despite  her  career 
and  despite  her  age. 

The  Odyssey  has  the  following  setting  for  her 
introduction.  Telemachus  and  a  friend  have  come 
to  Sparta  in  search  of  tidings  of  Odysseus,  and 
Menelaus  entertains  them  not  knowing  who  they 
are.  They  look  with  wonder  upon  the  grandeur 
of  his  palace,  whereupon  he  tells  them  that  all 
this  magnificence  is  naught,  for  he  has  lost  many 
friends,  whose  loss  is  indeed  bitter,  but  there  is 
one  who,  more  than  all  beside,  makes  him  loathe 
his  food  and  sleep.  That  one  is  Odysseus,  the 
remembrance  of  whose  loss  fills  his  days  with 
sorrow.  Just  at  this  moment  Helen,  as  beautiful 
as  Artemis,  comes  into  the  room,  attended  by 
maidens  who  carry  her  wool  and  her  spinning — 
for  Helen  is  still  the  same  active  house-wife  she 


i,  AM)   HKRi  187 

al  her  ftrsl  appearance  in  the  Iliad.       he 
modestly  tarns  toward  Mfonelaus,       dng  him  the 

names  of  his  quests  and  saying  that  she  i        artled 

by  thf  resemblance  Bhe  observes  between  one  of 
the  young  men  and  Odysseus.  "This  musl  be  the 
boy  Telemachus,  whom  Odye         left  a  i         babe 

in  his  home,  when  you  AchaeailS  went  under  the 
walls  of  Troy  for  the  sake  of  me,  poor  shamel( 

one."     Helen  had  seen  little  of  Odysseus,   B 
then  under  difficulties,  yet  she  marks  a'       fiance 

the  features  of  the  father  in  the  face  of  the  son; 

whereas  Menelaus,  who  had  Lived  with  Odysseus 

for  many  years  and  had  dined  and  conversed  with 
Telemachus,  has  failed  to  see  the  resemblance. 
It  is  then  learned  that  one  of  the  young  men  is 
indeed  Telemachus,  whereupon  they  all  burst  into 
tears,  sad  for  the  absence  of  Odysseus.  Hele 
then  throws  into  the  bowl  from  which  they  are 
drinking  an  Egyptian  drug  capable  of  causing 
forgetfulness  of  sorrow.  This  drug  may  well  have 
been  a  poetic  description  of  the  charm  of  her  pr 
ence.  Afterwards  she  relates  an  exploit  of  Odys- 
seus  in  which  she  had  helped  him  to  slay  many  in 
the  streets  of  Troy.  She  begins  by  Baying:  "Zeus 
gives  good  to  one  and  evil  to  another,  for  he  is 
all  powerful,"  and  ends  with  the  Words:  "My 
heart  was  set  to  return  home,  and  I  bewailed  that 
infatuation  which  Aphrodite  had  brought  upon 
me,  when  she  took  me  away  from  my  own  country, 
away  from  my  child,  my  home,  and  my  husband, 
a  husband  lacking  in  nothing,  deficient  neither  in 


188  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

wisdom  nor  hi  beauty. "  Menelaus,  blissfully 
nodding,  exclaims,  "That  is  exactly  right,  dear 
wife,  you  have  told  the  truth."  We  see  by  this 
that  she  is  fully  restored  to  her  home  and  to  the 
affections  of  her  husband.  Menelaus  then  tells  a 
story  of  her  cleverness,  when  she  came  up  to  the 
wooden  horse  and  imitated  the  voices  of  the  wives 
of  various  Achaeans,  while  the  men  inside  almost 
ruined  the  plot  in  their  eagerness  to  answer  her. 
At  her  last  appearance  she  presents  a  robe 
to  Telemachus  as  he  is  leaving  Sparta  for  Ithaca, 
"A  robe  for  his  future  wife  to  wear,  a  memento 
of  the  hands  of  Helen ' ' — evidently  a  robe  she  had 
made  herself.  Just  as  Telemachus  is  driving 
away  an  eagle  swoops  down  and  seizes  a  tame 
goose  from  the  yard,  while  men  and  women  run 
shouting  to  the  rescue.  The  eagle  flies  with  its 
prey  far  away  to  the  right.  Menelaus,  asked 
what  this  omen  may  foretell,  is  mute  and  helpless, 
but  Helen  interprets  it  thus : 

Listen  to  me  and  I  will  prophesy  as  the  gods  put  it 
into  my  mind,  and  as  I  think  it  will  be  fulfilled.  Just 
as  this  bird  sweeping  down  from  its  aerie  in  the  moun- 
tains has  seized  this  fowl  as  it  fed  in  the  yard,  so 
Odysseus,  after  much  wandering  and  many  sorrows,  will 
return  home  and  be  avenged,  or  even  now  he  may  be 
at  home  and  be  in  the  very  act  of  bringing  ruin  to  all 
the  suitors. 

With  these  words  Helen  disappears  never  to 
reappear  or  to  speak  again.  She  is  still  the  same 
as  when,  a  generation  earlier,  a  goddess  had  pic- 
tured her  to  a  Trojan  shepherd  as  "the  fairest 


(ions  AND  BEEOB  l-'i 

woman  in  the  world."  On  each  appearance  Helen 
is  Industrious,  Belf-oentered,  beautiful,  and  ex- 
tremely brilliant.     She  in   an   instant    thingfl 

which  Menelaus  could  hardly  Bee  in  an  hour,  or 
could  not  Sit  at  all.  Menelans  in  the  Iliad  con- 
stantly needed  the  protection  and  guidance  of  hi 

stronger  brother,  Agamemnon,  and  in  the  Odyssey 
he  plainly  echoes  the  sentiments  of  his  wife.  Ib- 
is a  kindly,  generous  gentleman,  but  he  is  not 
shrewd  and  he  is  not  interesting.  He  must  have 
been  poor  company  for  so  clever  a  woman  as 
Helen.  Poor  Helen,  limited  to  his  society,  with 
no  magazines  and  no  fashion-plates,  must  have 
craved  something  different,  and  so,  from  pure 
love  for  excitement,  she  followed  Paris.  Homer's 
portrait  of  Helen  is  a  perfect  picture.  In  spite 
of  her  few  and  brief  appearances  there  is  hardly 
a  more  vivid  and  well-defined  portrait  in  the 
world's  literature.  All  the  poets  who  have  written 
since  Homer  have  been  unable  to  add  perma- 
nently a  single  feature,  or  to  change  a  single  line. 
The  Helen  of  the  world's  imagination  is  the  Helen 
of  Homer,  and  every  verse  which  tells  of  her 
blends  in  making  that  perfect  picture. 

Though  all  we  know  of  Helen  is  given  in  a 
few  verses,  the  hero  of  the  Odyssey  is  the  most 
often  seen  and  the  most  fullv  described  of  all  tl 

i 

characters  adopted  or  created  by  Homer.  In  the 
Iliad  the  poet  makes  his  theme  the  wrath  of 
Achilles,  but  Achilles  is  only  one,  although  the 
greatest,  of  a  large  group  of  mighty  warriors. 


190  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Diomede,  Ajax,  Odysseus,  Patroclus,  as  well  as 
Teucer,  Idomeneus,  and  Nestor  gain  immortality, 
not  by  association  with  the  hero,  but  in  their  own 
right  in  that  poem.  Odysseus  was  one  of  the 
prominent  actors  in  that  earlier  poem,  was  called 
by  his  own  name  or  that  of  his  father  not  less 
than  one  hundred  and  thirty  times,  was  honored 
in  the  councils,  the  battles,  and  the  games,  so  that 
the  poet  of  the  Odyssey  took  a  hero  with  whom 
the  audience  of  the  Iliad  was  already  familiar. 
In  the  Odyssey  he  dominates  all  scenes,  those 
where  he  is  present  and  those  from  which  he  is 
absent,  and  the  gatherings  in  Olympus  or  in 
Ithaca  have  meaning  only  as  they  refer  to  him. 
The  first  task  set  for  Odysseus  in  the  Iliad  was 
the  return  of  the  young  woman  Chryseis  to  her 
father.  In  its  execution  he  showed  his  diplomatic 
skill  and  quickly  brought  back  the  good-will  of 
the  priest  without  compromising  the  honor  or  the 
dignity  of  his  king.  His  adroitness  in  such  mat- 
ters made  him  the  natural  choice  of  the  Greeks, 
when,  later,  they  sent  an  embassy  to  appease  the 
angry  Achilles.  The  absolute  control  of  himself 
and  his  language  is  repeatedly  shown  in  the 
Odyssey,  but  especially  in  his  speech  to  Nausicaa, 
when  he  had  been  cast  ashore,  naked,  on  the  land 
of  the  Phaeacians.  No  one  could  have  been  less 
presentable  than  was  Odysseus  when  he  first  met 
the  eyes  of  the  maiden,  yet  he  spoke  in  such  win- 
ning and  dignified  language  as  to  convince  her 
that  he  was  a  gentleman  whom  she  might  feed, 


(Ji  AND   BBEOE 

clothe,  and  admit  t<>  her  hwii  city.    When  latei  he 

(•am.-    into   the    presence   of    .Urinous    and    Air: 
clad   in  tin-  clothing  Arete  herself  had   made  and 

which  -la-  recognized,  even  in  this  rather  onher< 

.situation,  he  talked  to  them  in  such  a  manner  tliat 
they  too  were  convinced  of  his  merits,  and  prom- 
■d  to  send  him  safely  home. 
Odysseus  had  perfect  control  of  himself  and 
could  think  calmly  in  a  crisis  and  on  the  instant. 
After   Agamemnon   had   made   his   foolish   speech 

in  which  he  urged  the  Greeks  to  abandon  the 
struggle,  thinking  thereby  to  shame  them  into 
bravery,  they  took  him  at  his  word  and  started 
pell-mell  on  a  rush  to  the  ships,  eager  to  hasten 
home.  All  seemed  lost,  and  the  leaders  were 
panic-stricken.  But  Odysseus  at  once  saw  the 
danger  and  knew  howT  to  meet  it.  With  energetic 
measures,  instantly  applied,  he  changed  then- 
spirit  so  completely  that  those  who  a  few  moments 
before  thought  only  of  flight  were  now  eager  for 
the  fray.  Later,  when  he  and  Ajax  were  wrestling 
for  a  prize,  he  whispered  to  his  burly  opponent 
to  make  it  a  sham  contest  and  to  let  him  throw 
him,  advice  which  Ajax  stupidly  followed.  Cut 
when  it  came  the  turn  of  Odysseus  to  fall  he  did 
not  reciproca"  This  same  canning  and  self- 
control  saved  him  from  the  cave  of  the  Cyclop-. 

kept  his   ship   from   the    Laestrygonian   harbor 

where  all  the  other  ships  were  lost,  and  kept 
him  from   being  too   early  discovered   when    he 

returned,  in  beggar's  disguise,  to  Ithaca.     It  was 


192  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

this  same  native  shrewdness  which  made  him 
remove  the  bodies  of  the  slain  Thracians  from 
before  the  horses  of  Rhesus,  lest  the  horses,  un- 
used to  the  presence  of  corpses,  should  be  terrified 
at  the  strange  sight  and  ruin  his  own  and 
Diomede 's  adventure. 

Odysseus  was  not,  like  Achilles,  a  rash  warrior 
who  took  risks  for  their  own  sake.  His  bravery 
was  tempered  with  caution.  Hence  he  did  not 
seek  a  battle  with  Hector,  Aeneas,  Glaucus,  or 
Sarpedon;  but  in  time  of  real  need  nothing  could 
daunt  him  or  restrain  him.  When  Agamemnon 
and  Diomede  had  been  wounded  and  forced  to 
retire,  Odysseus  did  not  shrink  from  facing  the 
Trojans,  many  of  whom  he  slew.  In  the  Odyssey, 
too,  he  preferred  to  meet  danger  vicariously. 
He  sent  companions  to  find  out  who  the  Lotus- 
eaters  were,  to  investigate  the  nature  of  the 
Laestrygonians,  and  to  explore  the  island  of  Circe. 
When,  however,  Eurylochus  returned  from  the 
haunts  of  Circe  and  reported  the  loss  of  his  com- 
panions, Odysseus  did  not  weigh  the  danger  nor 
hesitate;  in  spite  of  the  pleadings  of  Eurylochus, 
he  set  out  at  once  and  alone  to  rescue  them. 

Odysseus  had  an  enormous  appetite  and 
seemed  always  ready  to  eat.  The  fact  that  he 
ate  three  times  in  one  night,  that  night  when  he 
and  Diomede  made  the  foray  on  the  Thracians, 
has  caused  anguish  of  soul  to  the  critics.  When 
Achilles  threw  off  his  anger  after  the  death  of 
Patroclus,  and  after  his  mother  had  brought  him 


GN  ©8  and  SBSOB 

his  iirw  and  divine  armor,  he  was  er  to  begin 
the  battle  at  once,  bnl  Odysseus  said:  "Feed  the 
inch,  for  food  is  both  b\  rength  and  bravery. 
Hungry  men  oannol  fight."  This  seemed  too 
prosaic  for  the  high-spirited  son  of  Thetis,  who 

replied:  "Hungry  <>r  not.  Lei  them  fight!  It  Lfl 
no  time  to  think  of  food  in  such  an  hour  afl  this." 
Odysseus  insisted,  however,  that  hungry  trOO] 
eared  little  for  gloiy.  The  men  were  fed  ami 
glory  was  permitted  to  wait.  In  the  Odyssey  he 
was  always  ready  for  food.  Once  he  told  Alcinous 
that  he  must  excuse  him  from  other  things  and  let 
him  eat,  "for  there  is  nothing  more  imperious 
than  a  hungry  stomach,  which  always  hids  one 
remember  it." 

Odysseus  allowed  neither  his  enthusiasm  nor 
his  emotions  to  make  him  forget  the  main  cham 
and  that  main  chance  was  the  advantage  of  Odys- 
seus. The  Phaeacians  gave  him  a  banquet,  setting 
before  him  a  tine  piece  of  pork.  Odysseus  in 
order  to  show  his  esteem  for  Demodocus,  cut  off 
a  portion  for  him,  but  the  poet  slyly  adds:  "lie 
cut  off  a  piece  for  the  bard,  bnl  the  Larger  pie* 
he  kept  for  himself."  One  of  the  Phaeacians, 
Euryalus,  had  deeply  offended  Odyssens  by  say- 
ing that  he  resembled  B  trader  rather  than  an 
athlete.     Then  when  the  mistake  was  discovered 

he  begged  pardon  of  Odysseus,  and  in  token  of 
reconciliation    offered    him    his    beautiful    BWOrd 

with  hilt  of  silyer  and  scabbard  of  ivory.  <  >dys- 
seus   did  not   tell    him    to   keep    his    sword,    but 


194 


THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


offered  this  prayer  instead :  ' '  May  the  gods  grant 
you  prosperity  and  may  you  never  miss  this 
sword  !"  When  the  Phaeacians  invited  him  to 
remain  a  little  longer  so  that  they  might  pre- 
pare a  suitable  gift,  although  he  was  most  eager 
to  return  home,  he  replied:  "I  would  gladly  stay 
a  year,  if  you  should  spend  that  time  in  getting 
ready  a  suitable  gift. ' '  The  Phaeacians  set  Odys- 
seus ashore  in  his  native  land,  while  he  was  still 
asleep,  and  placed  his  gifts  by  his  side.  And  the 
first  thing  he  did  upon  awaking  was  to  count  those 
gifts  to  see  if  they  had  left  him  everything.  When 
Penelope  told  the  suitors  that  suitors  should  bring 
gifts  and  should  not  consume  the  substance  of 
another,  Odysseus  sat  by  and  grinned  to  think 
that  she  was  trying  to  increase  his  store. 

Odysseus  was  the  favorite  of  Athena  and  her 
human  counterpart.  She  aroused  him  to  stay  the 
flight  of  the  Greeks  in  B,  sent  him  an  omen  in  K, 
helped  him  in  the  games,  encouraged  his  son  to 
seek  tidings  of  him,  assisted  him  when  among  the 
Phaeacians,  was  the  first  to  meet  him  on  his  return 
to  Ithaca,  helped  him  slay  the  suitors,  and  brought 
about  the  final  reconciliation  with  his  people. 
Odysseus  must  have  been  a  fine  fellow,  as  he  had 
the  confidence  and  respect  of  his  associates.  He 
was  appointed  to  restore  the  daughter  to  the  aged 
priest  at  the  beginning  of  the  Iliad,  was  selected 
to  measure  the  ground  for  the  duel  (T),  and 
was  the  chosen  ambassador  of  the  Greeks  to 
appease  the  anger  of  Achilles.    Achilles  referred 


«,  AND  BBROE  Lfi 

to  him  as  one  of  those  he  loved  the  most,  I »         le 
ileoted  him  as  his  companion  on  the  perilon 
oighl   foray,  and  in  the  font  race  his  oomrad 
cheered  him  and  wished  him  to  win.    This  little 
touch  shows  his  popularity  with  the  men  who 
knew  him,  and  shows  thai  he  was  no         Jl     In 

the  Od;         y  all  the  honest    people  loved  him  and 

a  favorite  description  of  him  was.  uPor  he  w 

as  kind  as  a  father."  Twenty  years  had  not 
dulled  the  affections  of  his  wife  nor  the  admira- 
tion of  the  elders  among  his  people.  The  old 
nurse,  Eurycleia,  the  swineherd,  Eumaeus,  t! 
neatherd,  Philoetius,  and  even  the  old  dog,  Argus, 
still  yearned  for  their  kind  and  considerate  ma- 
ter.   Xot  onlv  the  members  of  his  own  household 

i 

loved  him,  but  we  learn  from  the  lips  of  X  est  or 
and  Menelaus  that  he  was  the  especial  object  of 
their  deepest  affections.  In  Homer  it  is  ti. 
nobility  of  Odysseus  quite  as  much  as  his  shrewd- 
ness which  exalts  him.  The  Odysseus  of  the 
Odyssey  is  the  Odysseus  of  the  Iliad;  in  the  latter 
poem  he  is  given  greater  prominence,  but  the 
features  are  the  same.  In  the  Iliad  we  have  him 
as  a  part  of  a  group,  while  in  the  I  tdyssey  we  have 
a  "close-up  picture"  of  the  same  hero. 

The  Homeric  unity  of  character  shown  in 
Helen  and  Odysseus  appears  equally  distinct  in 
Xestor,  Penelope,  Ajax,  Patroclns,  Menelaus.  or 
in  any  of  the  rest.  Each  actor  is  consistent 
throughout  and  each  shows  marks  and  traitfl 
found  onlv  in  himself.    How  did  this  unity  arise? 


196  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Those  who  deny  unity  to  Homer  and  who  assume 
a  multitude  of  authors  for  the  Homeric  poems 
say  that  these  characters  were  created  by  tradi- 
tion and  that  the  unity  is  due  to  various  poets 
working  under  a  common  impulse  to  a  common 
end.  We  have  a  tradition  of  Odysseus  outside  of 
Homer,  a  tradition  fairly  consistent  and  appear- 
ing not  only  in  the  epic  cycle  but  in  the  drama 
as  well.  In  this  un-Homeric  tradition  Palamedes 
won  such  fame  at  Troy  that  Odysseus  from  jeal- 
ousy resolved  to  destroy  him.  With  this  in  mind 
he  had  a  letter  written  to  Palamedes  as  if  from 
Priam,  then  had  it  concealed  in  the  victim's  tent, 
whereupon  he  accused  him  of  treason  and  urged 
that  the  tent  be  searched.  The  letter  was  found, 
the  treason  established,  and  poor  Palamedes 
was  put  to  death.  Another  tradition  was  that 
Palamedes  was  told  that  there  was  much  hidden 
treasure  in  a  well,  and  he  was  induced  to  go  down 
in  search  of  it.  Odysseus  and  Diomede  then  threw 
stones  into  the  well  and  thus  slew  him.  In  the 
Ajax  of  Sophocles  this  same  Odysseus  is  pictured 
as  an  Iago  of  villainy  who  brought  about  the  mad- 
ness and  the  suicide  of  the  great  Ajax,  son  of 
Telamon,  and  in  the  Philoctetes  of  Sophocles  he 
avows  his  own  baseness  and  duplicity  before  the 
helpless  invalid,  but  becomes  a  coward  when  that 
invalid  has  control  of  his  bow.  Tradition  did,  in 
a  measure,  create  an  Odysseus,  but  it  is  not  the 
Odysseus  of  Homer.  The  Odysseus  of  tradition 
is  hardly  more  than  the  personification  of  cunning 


<;<>]>s  and  IIEROB  197 

and  cruelty.     There   ifl   nothing   in   this   <  M 
which  would  make  his  companions  cheer  him   in 
the    panics    and    desire    him    to    win.       1  loner 
(  klysseos  is  his  own  creation. 

There  is  rarely  a  consistent  Greek  tradition. 

The  same  story  may  appear  in  as  many  different 
forms  as  there  are  men  to  tell  it.  Bach  of  the 
three  great  writers  of  Attic  tragedy,  Aeschylus, 

Sophocles,  and  Euripides,  wrote  a  play  on  the 
bringing  of  the  lame  Philoctet<'s  from  Lemnos 
to  Troy.  The  oracle  had  foretold  that  Troy  could 
not  be  taken  without  the  help  of  the  bow  of  this 
outraged  archer,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  w. 
induced  to  forego  his  anger  and  to  come  to  the 
help  of  those  very  leaders  who  had  so  brutally 
abandoned  him  in  his  wretchedness  forms  the  plot 
of  each  of  these  dramas.  Yet  each  account  differs 
from  the  other  two. 

In  Aeschylus '  play  Odysseus  was  commissioned 
to  bring  Philoctetes  to  Troy.  He  walked  boldly 
into  his  presence,  telling  Philoctetes,  who  failed 
to  recognize  him,  that  Agamemnon  and  his  chief 
foe,  Odysseus,  were  both  dead.  Philoctetes  was 
seized  with  a  paroxysm  and  while  he  was  in  that 
condition  Odysseus  secured  possession  of  the  how. 
As  the  play  of  Aeschylus  is  preserved  only  in 
fragments,  a  part  of  even  this  brief  outline  is 
conjectural.  In  the  play  of  Euripides  both  Odys 
seus  and  Diomede  were  sent  to  bring  Philoctetes. 
Odvsseus  came  as  if  an   exile  driven  out   by  the 

malice  of  Odysseus,  who  had  caused  the  death  of 


198  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Philoctetes'  friend,  Palamedes.  A  Trojan  em- 
bassy meanwhile  arrived  and  urged  Philoctetes 
to  join  their  side,  since  his  own  Greek  countrymen 
had  so  basely  deserted  him.  Thereupon  Philoc- 
tetes swooned  and  was  treated  with  great  kind- 
ness by  Odysseus,  who  finally  persuaded  him  to 
forego  his  anger  and  join  the  Greeks.  This  play 
is  also  fragmentary  and  the  plot  can  not  be  re- 
stored with  confidence.  In  the  play  by  Sophocles 
it  was  the  youthful  Neoptolemus  and  not  Diomede 
who  went  with  Odysseus,  and  the  deception  prac- 
ticed by  Odysseus  in  the  versions  of  Aeschylus 
and  Euripides  was  here  the  work  of  Neoptolemus, 
the  son  of  Achilles,  while  Odysseus  did  not  dare 
to  face  Philoctetes,  the  thing  he  was  made  to  do 
by  both  the  others. 

In  these  three  dramas  we  have  the  same  gen- 
eral theme  presented  in  three  different  ways  by 
three  different  men,  all  for  an  audience  in  the 
Dionysiac  theater,  in  the  same  city,  and  within 
a  period  of  hardly  more  than  fifty  years.  These 
same  three  tragedians  wrote  plays  on  the  death  of 
Agamemnon,  of  Clytaemnestra,  and  of  Aegisthus, 
in  which  the  details  are  quite  as  much  at  variance 
as  they  are  in  the  story  of  Philoctetes.  Their 
utter  failure  to  give  anything  approaching  unity 
of  character  to  the  several  actors  is  clearly  shown, 
likewise,  in  the  manner  in  which  they  portray 
Electra.  Each  of  their  tragedies  in  which  that 
young  woman  plays  a  leading  part  is  fortunately 
preserved  entire.     In  Aeschylus   Electra  comes 


Q0D8  AND  BEROI  1' 

upon  the  Boene  weeping  for  the  Iom  of  her  father, 
the  baseness  <>t*  her  mother,  and  moel  of  all  for 
tin1  absence  of  her  brother  Ore  When  her 

brother  returns  Bhe  leaves  the  leadership  in  plan- 
ning and  in  action  to  him,  and  he  makes  and 

mtea  his  own  design       In  this  play  Or 
slays  both  his  own  mother  and  her  paramour, 

A.  '_;i sthus.  The  famous  recognition  seem*  is  based 
on  the  hair  and  the  footprints  of  the  young  man. 
In  Sophocles  Electra  maintains  the  Leadership 
throughout,  even  after  Orestes '  return.  Be 
onlv  secondary.  It  is  Electra  who  is  the  dominant 
character  and  who  decides  her  own  course  as  well 
as  her  brother's.  Again  in  Aeschylus,  Aegisth 
the  first  to  be  slain  and  Clytaemnestra  knows  that 
she  too  is  doomed  when  she  learns  of  his  death. 
In  the  Electra  of  Sophocles,  Clytaemnestra  is  mur- 
dered first  and  Aegisthus  is  led  to  belieye  that  her 
corpse  is  the  corpse  of  Orestes.  When  he  looks 
at  the  face  he  sees  that  he  has  been  deceived  and 
realizes  that  his  own  doom  is  at  hand,  and  this 
doom  immediately  follows.  In  the  Electra  of 
Euripides,  Electra  is  no  longer  an  occupant  of 
the  palace,  but  the  wife  of  a  peasant,  and  she 
summons  her  mother,  pretending  that  she  Is  about 
to  give  birth  to  a  child.  Meanwhile  Or  -  in  the 
guise  of  a  Thessalian  traveler  has  slain  AegisthuS, 
and  the  corpse  is  brought  to  the  farm  to  Electra. 
Clvtaemnestra  comes  in  answer  to  the  summons 
of  her  daughter,  and  is  slain  by  the  thrust  of  a 
sword  driven  by  both  Orestes   and    Electra.      In 


200  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

this  play  Electra  recognizes  her  brother  not  by 
his  hair  or  his  feet,  but  by  a  scar  over  the  eye. 
Electra  in  the  play  of  Euripides  is  coarse  and 
cruel,  entirely  unlike  the  Electra  of  either  of  the 
other  dramatists. 

These  dramas  show  clearly  that  the  Greeks 
were  not  offended  either  by  diversity  in  treatment 
of  the  same  story  or  of  the  same  character,  and 
we  are  justified  in  believing  that  they  would  never 
have  rewritten  or  revised  Homer  in  order  to 
make  Homer's  actors  or  Homer's  stories  uniform 
throughout.  This  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  pic- 
ture of  Electra  as  portrayed  by  the  tragedians 
is  exactly  like  the  various  pictures  of  King  David 
in  different  parts  of  the  Bible.  The  books  of 
Samuel  and  the  Chronicles  are  by  common  consent 
traditional  books.  In  Samuel  David  is  described 
as  a  lustful  and  cruel  king,  who  took  wives  from 
their  husbands  and  even  caused  the  death  of  one 
of  his  subjects  for  the  sake  of  the  possession  of 
his  wife.  But  when  Chronicles  pictures  the  reign 
and  life  of  David  that  monarch  has  not  a  single 
fault.  He  is  a  king  ruling  in  purity  and  righteous- 
ness— a  totally  different  picture  of  the  same  man.3 
The  most  superficial  study  of  the  four  gospels 
which  tell  the  story  of  the  life  of  Jesus  will  show 
that  each  one  of  these  writers  saw  Jesus  in  a 
different  way  from  all  the  others.  These  accounts 
are  not  contradictory;  they  were  written  from 
different  points  of  view. 

3  I  owe  this  remark  about  David  to  Professor  F.  C.  Eiselen. 


GODS  AND  SEBOB  »1 

This  total  inability  of  two  writers  to  sec  tin* 

same  characters   in   tin*   same   wav   is   finely    Lllus- 

trated  by  the  history  of  the  Btory  of  Don  Quixote. 
After  the  appearance  of  the  First  Pari  and  its 
greal  popularity,  a  clever  writer  undertook  to  oon- 
tinue  the  Btory  and  published  whal  was  assumed 

tobr  the  Second  Part,  but  he  failed  bo  completely 
in  catching  the  spirit  of  Cervantes  or  in  making 
his  knight  Like  the  original  that  the  attempt  was 

an  utter  failure.  Schiller  and  Goethe  also  were 
men  of  genius  of  high  order.     They  Lived  much 

together  and  knew  each  other's  modes  of  thought. 
Schiller  communicated  to  his  friend  the  outlines 
of  a  play,  even  the  details  of  the  plot,  but  he  did 
not  live  to  finish  it.  Goethe  undertook  to  carry 
out  the  idea  in  the  spirit  of  Schiller,  but  he  found 
that  it  could  not  arouse  his  genius,  that  he  could 
not  get  into  the  spirit  of  his  friend,  and  he  felt  it 
necessary  to  abandon  the  attempt.4 

It  is  well-known  that  the  Greek  tragedians 
repeated  the  same  theme  continually.  The  Identi- 
cal titles  of  many  plays  reappear  in  the  lists  of 

the  works  of  the  different   writers,  yet   in    I  Joiner 

no  scene  and  no  story  is  repeated.    I  do  not  refer 

to  mere  repetitions  by  messengers  or  to  sum- 
maries, such  as  Achilles'  words  to  his  mother, 
or  the  account  Telemachus  gave  of  his  journey. 

All   the  characters    in    Homer  are  uniform,   they 
have   life    and    individuality,    but    no    scene    from 
the  Iliad  is  repeated  in  the  OdyBSey,     The  -ame 
*Beferred  to  by  Rothe,  Odymet   als  Dichtung,  8 


202  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

audience  in  Athens  could  see  the  same  person 
represented  in  entirely  different  and  contradic- 
tory aspects  and  could  hear  the  same  story  retold 
with  different  features  and  with  different  actors. 
Who  gave  this  unity  to  Homeric  characters  and 
who  kept  the  same  story  from  being  retold? 
Certainly  not  a  group  of  men  who  felt  no  shock 
at  hearing  contradictions  and  at  seeing  repeti- 
tions. Who  gave  the  poetry  of  Homer  this  unity 
of  character  and  this  unity  of  action?  There  is 
but  one  answer:  The  unity  of  character  which 
pervades  the  poetry  of  Homer  must  be  due  to  the 
fact  that  each  actor  sprang  from  a  single  brain, 
a  brain  which  pictured  each  individual  with  such 
vividness  and  such  distinctness  that  incongruity 
and  contradictions  were  impossible.  These  clear 
and  distinct  outlines  are  the  creation  of  a  single 
mind;  they  are  not  a  composite  picture  by  several 
masters.  In  all  composite  pictures  the  centers  are 
fairly  distinct,  the  edges  are  blurred  and  confused. 
It  is  the  clearness  of  the  edges  which  proves  the 
unitv  of  Homer. 

This  unity  of  character  is  expressed  in  a  style 
which  stands  entirely  alone.  Matthew  Arnold 
said  of  this  style :  ' '  Homer  has  not  Shakespeare 's 
variations.  Homer  always  composes,  as  Shakes- 
peare composes  at  his  best.  The  compelling  argu- 
ment for  Homeric  unity  is  that  the  poem  has 
the  magic  stamp  of  a  master  and  that  stamp  is 
the  grand  style.  "5    A  critic  so  competent  and  a 

5  On  Translating  Homer,  Lecture  II. 


OODS  AND  BBROE  I 

port  bo  great  as  Shelley  Baid:  "As  a  poet  Boomer 

must  be  acknowledged  to        I  Shake        re  in  tl. 

truth,  the  harmony,  the  sustained   grandeur,  the 

satisfying  completeness  <»t'  his  images."4  Greek 
hexameters  were  written  for  a  thousand  yean  and 
more  after  Home!-,  hut  none  of  these  hexameters 

remind  us  of  him.   We  never,  except  to  glorify  him, 

think  of  Homer,  when  we  read  Hesiod,  Apollonius, 

Quintus,  or  Nonnus,  yet  all  of  them  wrote  in  his 

meter  and  in  his  dialect.    All  the  great  mass  of 

poetry  known  as  the  epic  cycle  seems  to  have  been 
composed  in  something  like  the  Homeric  manner 
and  on  themes  resembling  Homer's  themes.  Still 
no  one  has  ever  quoted  a  single  verse  nor  referred 
to  a  single  scene  from  any  poem  of  the  entire 
cycle  as  illustrating  either  high  merit  or  poetic 
excellence.  It  is  beyond  credulity  to  suppose  that 
a  group  of  poets  should  all  have  written  in  the 
tme  grand  style,  that  all  their  work  should  have 
been  collected  into  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey,  and 
that  by  chance  not  another  poet  whose  works 
accidentally  fell  to  any  other  poem  should  have 

attained  that  style.  The  one  poet  whom  we  kn«»w 
who  lived  closest  to  the  time  of  Homer  is  Eesiod, 
and  we  are  positively  certain  that  the  author  of 

the  Works  and  Days  could  have  written  no  one  of 
the  great  scenes  of  either  the  ll'md  or  the  Odyssey. 
It  is  easier  to  believe  that  Shakespeare  wrote 
King  Lear,  Macbeth,  Hamlet,  Othello,  and  Tl<> 
M>  rchani  of  Venice  than  that  live  men  lived  at  that 

e  Quoted   by  Professor   Smyth,   Columbia    Leotmnt  on    Gr< 

Literature,  46. 


204  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

time,  each  capable  of  writing  one  of  these  plays. 
Hamlet  is  the  best  possible  evidence  of  Shakes- 
peare's ability  to  write  Othello.  No  other  poet 
known  to  us  was  capable  of  writing  the  story  of 
the  ransom  of  the  body  of  Hector  except  that 
poet  who  wrote  also  the  parting  of  Hector  and 
Andromache,  the  speeches  of  the  embassy,  the 
death  of  Hector,  and  the  story  of  the  Phaeacians. 
Other  writers  .might  suggest  Homer  but  no  one 
of  them  could  be  mistaken  for  him.  They  could 
paraphrase  him,  parallel  him,  imitate  him,  but 
they  have  produced  nothing  which  posterity  has 
cared  to  place  by  the  side  of  any  of  his  great 
scenes.  They  might  at  times  seem  to  catch  the 
spirit  of  Homer,  but  they  did  not.  They  have 
enriched  the  world  with  no  Nausicaa,  no  Eumaeus, 
and  no  Andromache. 

[Dr.  Heinrich  Spiess  in  his  Mensohenart  und  Heldentum  in 
der  Ilias  suggested  to  me  the  idea  of  writing  this  chapter.  I  owe 
much  to  him  for  many  suggestions.] 


CHAPTER  VII 
HECTOB 

When  Herodotus  gave  an  account  of  the  great 
series  of  struggles  by  which  the  Greeks  drove  out 
of  Europe  the  forces  of  Asiatic  despotism,  he  said 
that  the  purpose  of  his  narrative  was  to  preserve 
to  the  glorious  actions  of  the  Greeks  and  of  the 
barbarians  their  due  meed  of  praise.  This  eager- 
ness to  preserve  the  glory  of  his  enemies  as  weD 
as  that  of  his  own  countrymen  was  peculiarly 
Greek.  Thucvdides  was  the  historian  of  that 
terrible  war  in  which  Athens  lost  her  empire  to 
the  forces  of  Sparta,  yet  so  impartially  is  the 
story  told  that  except  for  one  or  two  chance  refer- 
ences it  might  be  argued  that  the  author  was  not 
an  Athenian,  for  a  Spartan  general,  Brasidas, 
seems  to  have  been  his  favorite.  This  ability  to 
humanize  the  foe  was  entirely  unknown  to  the 
Hebrew  writers.  Their  enemies  never  appealed 
to  their  sympathies,  and  the  various  inhabitant B 
whom  they  dispossessed  of  their  homes  Beam 
never  to  have  touched  the  pity  nor  to  have  aroused 
the  better  emotions  of  any  of  the  sacred  writers. 

Herodotus  and  Thucvdides,  in  this  Impartial- 
ity and  in  their  appreciation  of  the  virtues  of 
their   foes,    were    followers    of   Homer,    who    so 


206  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

graciously  entered  into  the  heart  and  the  nobler 
sentiments  of  the  enemy  that  it  was  a  Trojan,  not 
a  Greek,  who  became  the  moral  hero  of  the  poem. 
Yet  Homer  was  a  Greek  with  all  the  sympathies 
and  prejudices  of  a  patriotic  Greek.  He  never 
pictures  any  of  his  countrymen  as  begging  for  life 
or  as  taken  prisoner;  the  death  of  a  Greek  is 
always  avenged,  the  death  of  a  Trojan  but  rarely; 
and  generally,  when  a  Trojan  falls,  his  name  is 
given,  but  the  slain  Greeks  are  for  the  most  part 
nameless.1  The  Greeks  advance  to  battle  with 
perfect  discipline  and  in  quiet,  while  the  Trojans 
move  with  confusion  and  tumult.  The  short 
victory  which  came  to  the  Trojans  was  made 
necessary  because  of  the  determination  of  Zeus  to 
honor  Achilles.  Even  the  Trojan  success,  there- 
fore, was  for  the  purpose  of  giving  greater  glory 
to  a  Greek.  The  Trojans  were  at  war  because 
of  the  violation  of  the  sacred  obligations  of  guest- 
friendship,  and  hostilities  were  renewed  by  the 
treacherous  wounding  of  Menelaus  by  Pandarus 
in  defiance  of  most  solemn  oaths.  Against  this 
background  of  violated  hospitality  and  perjured 
oaths  Homer  drew  the  character  of  Hector. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  poem  this  hero  of  the 
Trojan  forces  is  not  brought  upon  the  stage  nor 
given  prominence.  Long  before  we  see  him,  how- 
ever, we  know  that  he  is  to  be  the  chief  antagonist, 
the    one   whom   the    Greeks    are   most   to    fear. 

i  Frey,  "Hektor, "  Bern  Program  1895.  There  were  slain  189 
named  Trojans  and  53  named  Greeks.  Hector  slew  28  of  these 
Greeks. 


HBCTOB 

Achilles  in  his  anger  swore  that  the  Ghreeka  would 
rue  liis  absence  on  thai  day  when  many  Bhonld 

I'all    at    the   hands    of   man  >la\ ing    Sector.      Also, 

Agamemnon  called  the  Leaden  of  the  Qreeke 
toother  for  sacrifice  and  prayed  that  Zen-  grant 
him  the  power  of  burning  that  very  day  the  halls 
of  Priam  and  of  bringing  vanquished  Sector  to 
the  dust.    By  the  words  of  Achillea  and  the  prayer 

of  Agamemnon  the  poet  was  ahle  to  create  tin* 
impression  that  Hector  was  a  known  and  illufl 
trious  warrior.  We  are  not  surprised  therefore 
to  find  that,  when  the  Trojans  are  first  introduced, 
it  is  Hector  on  whom  chiefly  rests  the  protection 
of  the  city,  nor  to  read  in  the  Trojan  Catalogue 
that  "  Great  Hector  of  waving  plume,  the  son  of 
Priam,  led  the  Trojans,  and  with  him  the  best 
warriors  eagerly  armed  themselves." 

When  the  opposing  forces  at  last  moved  for- 
ward, as  if  to  begin  the  struggle,  Paris  advanced 
in  front  of  his  own  army  challenging  the  best  of 
the  foe  to  meet  him  in  single  combat.  At  once 
Menelaus  sprang  forward,  fairer  to  avenge  him- 
self on  the  deiiler  of  his  home,  whereupon  Pari 
drew  back,  terrified,  into  the  ranks  of  the  Trojans. 
Then  Hector  upbraided  him  with  the  word-: 
"Wretched  Paris,   fairest   of  form,   woman-mad, 

deceiver,  would  thou  hadst  never  been  born  and 

hadst  died  unwed."  Be  bitterly  reproached  him 
for  his  follv  and  his  cowardice,  and  ended  with 
the  biting  taunt:  "But  the  Trojans  are  timidly 
lenient,  or  else  ere  this  had>t  thou  put  on  a  tunic 


208  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

of  stone,  for  the  ills  thou  hast  wrought.' '  These 
were  the  first  words  spoken  by  Hector.  They 
show  in  advance  that  he  had  no  sympathy  for 
the  course  pursued  by  Paris  and  no  heart  in  the 
war.  Paris  was  driven  to  renew  the  challenge, 
and  the  duel  was  prepared  on  the  condition  that 
the  winner  should  take  Helen  and  all  her  posses- 
sions, the  Trojans  continue  to  live  in  Troy,  and 
the  Greeks  return  to  their  own  country.  Hector 
was  determined  to  bring  peace  at  any  price.  He 
felt  that  the  war  was  founded  on  dishonor. 

Paris  proved  a  poor  champion.  He  was  res- 
cued from  the  fight  by  Aphrodite,  and  Menelaus 
was  left  alone,  a  victor,  on  the  field  of  honor. 
Then  Pandarus,  a  Trojan  ally,  treacherously 
wounded  Menelaus,  the  solemn  oaths  were  vio- 
lated, and  the  Trojans  added  to  their  infamy  by 
rushing  to  battle  and  making  the  treachery  of 
Pandarus  their  own.  The  Trojan  cause  was  thus 
loaded  with  a  double  guilt :  the  rape  of  Helen  and 
the  baseness  of  Pandarus. 

The  first  mention  we  have  of  Hector  in  the 
battle  that  ensued  is  in  the  verse,  "The  Trojan 
leaders  drew  back,  even  the  mighty  Hector  fled. ' ' 
It  is  highly  suggestive  that  at  the  first  appearance 
of  this  champion  on  the  field,  he  should  be  in 
retreat.  It  was  he  who  had  shamed  Paris  into 
playing  the  man;  it  was  he  who  had  conducted 
the  negotiations  which  led  to  the  truce  and  the 
oaths.  But,  outraged  by  the  conduct  of  Paris  and 
the  treachery  of  his  own  people,  his  spirit  was 


BECTOB  209 

gone  and  he  had  not   the  heart   to  fight.     Tl 

(.i rocks    seemed    on    the    poinl    of    winnii  en 

without  the  help  of  Achilles,  when  Sarpedoo 
shamed  Sector  into  action.  Be  accused  him  of 
enticing  the  allies  to  undertake  the  struggle  for 

Tr<»y    and    the    Trojans    while    he    himselt'    st 1 

basely  aside,  neither  fighting  nor  inspiring  othei ■- 

with  val«>r.     Hector  made  a  feeble  effort   to  play 

the  man,  hut  ho  did  not  enter  the  fighting  again 

until  Ares  joined  him  and  forced  him  into  the 
struggle.  The  little  glory  he  then  won  was  not 
his  own:  it  was  shared  with  the  god  of  war. 

Soon  he  dropped  out  of  sight,  and  the  Trojans 
were  on  the  point  of  retreating,  when  Belenus,  the 
seer,  suddenly  advised  Hector  to  leave  the  batti 
go  to  the  city,  and  tell  his  mother  and  the  women 
of  Troy  to  appease  Athena  by  offering  gifts  to 
that  angry  goddess.  Immediately  he  ceased  fight- 
ing and  made  this  address  to  his  troops:  "1 
proud-spirited  Trojans  and  ye  illustrious  allies, 
be  men  and  think  of  your  impetuous  courage  while 
I  depart  to  Ilium  that  1  may  hid  the  elder-  and 
the    women    to    offer    sacrifices    to    the    immortal 

gods."    Thereupon  lie  left  his  hard-pr d  men. 

Surely  it  was  an  astounding  thing  for  a  champion 
to  leave  his  men  in  the  moment  i^\'  greatest  danger, 

that  he  might  himself  carry  a  simple  messaire. 
He  might  have  sent  Helenus  with  orders  to  repeat 
in  the  city  the  advice  Helenus  had  just  given  t«> 
him,  or  he  might  have  sent  the  Least  important 
person  in  the  army.    It  was  a  poetic,  not  a  mili- 


210  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

tary,  consideration,  which  induced  Homer  to  use 
Hector  as  a  messenger.  He  wished  to  present  a 
scene  from  domestic  life;  Hector  was  needed  for 
that  scene  and  therefore  was  spared  from  the 
battle. 

The  account  of  his  mission  to  the  city,  his 
meeting  with  his  mother,  the  contrast  between  him 
and  Paris,  the  words  with  Helen,  and,  above  all,  the 
scene  between  the  wife,  the  husband,  and  the  little 
son,  is  generally  regarded  as  the  very  greatest 
triumph  of  literary  genius.  The  words  with  which 
Hector  addressed  his  wife  are  very  significant: 
' '  This  I  know  in  heart  and  soul  that  a  day  will 
come  when  sacred  Troy  shall  fall  and  Priam  and 
the  people  of  Priam  with  good  ashen  spear.' ' 
The  sadness  of  these  words  is  deepened  from  the 
fact  that  they  are  the  very  words  spoken  by 
Agamemnon  when  he  perceived  that  Menelaus 
had  been  shot  by  Pandarus  in  defiance  of  the 
oaths.  We  see  that  Hector  has  no  heart  and  no 
hope  in  the  struggle,  that  he  feels  that  the  gods 
are  justly  against  his  own  people. 

Although  this  parting  scene  is  rated  as  of  high 
merit  by  all  lovers  of  poetry,  it  is  almost  univer- 
sally rejected  by  the  critics  as  a  late  intrusion 
which  destroys  the  effect  and  the  harmony  of  the 
whole.  That  this  parting  scene  should  not  be 
the  final  parting  and  the  last  farewell  seems  in 
their  eyes  a  supreme  poetic  absurdity.  Hector, 
according  to  the  present  Iliad,  returned  at  the  end 
of  this  day's  fighting  to  his  home  and  wife,  that 


BECTOB  211 

be  Bpenl  the  night  after  the  parting,  the  ai 
after  the   first   day's   fighting,   presumably   the 
twenty-second  in  the  Btory  of  the  Iliad,  within  the 

city,      He  seems  also  to  have  been   in   Troy  in- 

of  the  two  following  days  and  nights.   The  rooooss 

of  the  Trojans   in   the  second  day's  fighting,  the 

twenty-fifth   day   of  the    Iliad,   induced   him   to 
encamp  near  the  place  of  combat  and  to  remain 

outside  the  walls.    On  the  following  day  Patroclus 

was  slain  and  Achilles  was  kept   from  fighting 

until  his  mother  could  bring  him  new  armor. 
Hector  spurned  the  wise  advice  of  Polydamafl  to 
return  within  the  walls.  He  remained  that  night 
on  the  plain,  and  was  slain  by  Achilles  on  the 
following  day.  Thus  Hector  died  on  the  twenty- 
Beventh  day  of  the  action  of  the  Iliad,  or  five  days 
after  the  scene  of  parting.  Of  the  live  intervening 
nights  three  seem  to  have  been  spent  in  the  city, 
without  doubt  in  his  own  home,  and  two  outside 
the  walls  not  far  from  the  cam])  of  the  Greeks. 
No  doubt  every  reader  is  somewhat  snrprifl 
to  find  that  Hector  and  Andromache  meet  again 
after  the  scene  of  parting.  The  higher  critic- 
in  this  account  a  contamination  of  two  or  more 
independent  traditions.  They  believe  that,  in  the 
original  version,  Hector  parted  from  Andromache 
to  meet   the  foe  and   die.   and   that    he   never   saw 

his  wife  or  son  again.    The  difficulty  they  find  is 

in  the  fact  that  this  solemn  parting  18  for  onlj 
few   hours,   while   the   real   and    final    farewell    is 
passed  over  in  silence.     Is  this  true  to  the  high 


212  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

and  best  standards  of  poetry?  There  is  no  truth 
in  poetry  which  is  not  also  truth  in  life.  Most 
farewells  in  this  world  have,  indeed,  not  been  last 
farewells,  and  surely  no  husband  and  father  ever 
went  to  dangerous  battle  without  some  such  part- 
ing as  this.  The  pathos  of  the  scene  was  not 
changed  by  the  accident  that  he  may  have  re- 
turned though  many  of  his  companions  fell. 

In  the  story  of  the  Bible,  the  first  person  to 
prepare  for  death  by  giving  his  final  blessing  to 
his  son  and  successor  was  Isaac.  In  that  account 
(Genesis  xxvn :  1  ff.)  Isaac  said  he  wished  to  bless 
his  son  and  then  to  die.  Clearly  the  thought  of 
this  patriarch  was  that  his  course  had  been  run. 
But  he  did  not  die ;  he  was  still  alive  when  Jacob 
returned  from  serving  Laban.  Whether  the  story 
of  Isaac  was  an  actual  fact  or  not,  it  was  at  least 
so  regarded  by  the  compilers  and  preservers  of 
the  narrative.  It  was  no  more  necessary  that 
Hector's  fears  should  have  been  immediately  ful- 
filled than  that  Isaac's  blessing  should  have  been 
followed  by  his  death.  After  Hector  had  left  his 
wife  and  had  met  Paris,  the  natural  reaction  set 
in  and  he  told  Paris  what  they  would  do  when 
finally  they  were  rid  of  the  Greeks.  Here  he  was 
mistaken,  for  he  never  lived  to  "  drink  a  cup  of 
freedom  in  his  halls.' ' 

When  Socrates  was  condemned  to  death  he 
said  to  those  who  condemned  him,  "I  wish  to 
prophesy  to  you,  for  I  am  now  at  that  point  where 
men  especially  foretell  the  future,  when  they  are 


BECTOB 

al)Out   to   dif."      Be    then    predicted    that    certain 
things  WOUld   happen   which   never  came  to   I 
The    Bignal    failure   of   this    prophecy    changed    in 
no    particular    the    impressive    soleiimity    of    the 

utterance.    Would  thi  >f  Penelope  daring 

those  twenty  yean  have  been  more  hitter  if  at 
the  end  Odvsseus  had  not  returned  .'  \\Y  can  look 
at  the  outcome  and  anticipate  sorrow  or  comfort 
thereby,  but  Penelope,  Hector,  and  Andromache 
could  not.  The  poet  chose  to  paint  their  feelings 
rather  than  ours.  This,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the 
essence  of  the  whole  matter:  the  poet  preferred 
to  picture  the  emotions  of  the  actual  participants 
in  the  action  of  the  poem  rather  than  those  of  the 
hearer  or  the  reader. 

Homer  has  such  a  perfect  parallel  to  this  part- 
ing scene  and  its  delayed  fulfillment  that  it  is 
strange  these  disintegrators  overlooked  it.  The 
parting  of  Calypso  and  Odysseus  is,  on  her  part 
at  least,  closely  akin  to  the  one  in  the  sixth  book 
of  the  Iliad.  How  a  modern  poet  would  view  tl. 
scene  and  where  he  would  put  it  is  illustrated  by 
Stephen  Phillips '  Ulysses.  In  that  play  the  p 
sionate  farewells  are  spoken  on  the  shor  Dur- 
ing their  utterance  Ulysses  embarks,  speaking  his 
final  words  from  the  deck  of  the  moving  ship, 
which  slowly  fades  from  the  sight  of  the  dis- 
tracted goddess.  AVhere  does  Homer  place  the 
scene  of  these  farewell-  The  story  is  found  in 
the  fifth  book  of  the  Odvssev.  When  Hermes 
warns  Calypso  that  Zeus  has  decreed  that  Odys- 


214  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

seus  is  to  leave  her,  the  goddess  reluctantly  seeks 
him  out  and  tries  eagerly  to  induce  him  to  remain 
with  her  and  to  become  immortal;  but,  failing  in 
this,  she  bids  him  farewell :  o-v  8e  xaiPe  KaL  */<""??— 
as  beautiful  and  dignified  words  of  parting  as 
were  ever  spoken !  We  expect  these  to  be  her  last 
words  and  that  Calypso  and  Odysseus  will  part 
at  once.  But  he  does  not  leave.  Instead  he  fol- 
lows her  to  her  home,  then  for  four  days  he  works 
at  his  raft  under  her  direction,  and  on  the  fifth 
he  sails  away  without  either  of  them  speaking 
another  word  of  farewell.  It  seems  too  deadly 
a  parallel  even  to  draw  it,  to  say  that  Hector  and 
Andromache  bade  farewell,  that  he  was  slain  on 
the  fifth  day  thereafter,  and  that  the  last  parting 
was  in  silence;  and  that  Odysseus  and  Calypso 
bade  farewell,  that  he  parted  on  the  fifth  day 
thereafter,  and  that  the  last  parting  was  in  silence. 
That  one  died  on  the  fifth  day,  and  the  other 
parted  on  the  fifth  day  after  the  farewells  were 
spoken  can  hardly  be  more  than  an  accident.  The 
fact  that  neither  parting  scene  was  put  at  the 
moment  of  the  last  meeting  must  be  no  accident 
but  poetic  design.  No  careful  student  of  Homer 
can  fail  to  grasp  the  poetic  purpose  in  this.  The 
poet  constantly  avoids  scenes  of  too  much  tragic 
pathos  or  too  great  emotional  intensity.  When 
Hector  met  his  death  at  the  hand  of  Achilles,  the 
wife  was  not  a  witness  of  that  scene,  although  it 
was  enacted  in  full  view  of  the  walls.  She  was 
busy  with  her  work  in  her  own  room,  and  at  the 


BBCTOB  L6 

very  moment  he  was  slain  she  was  taking  pride 

in  a  piece  of  artistic  embroidery  which  she  ws 

thru  finishing.     What  an  opportunity  tin-  poet  had 

to  place  Andromache  on  the  walls  and  "to  tear 
a  passion  to  tatters"!  Tin4  poet  shows  his  com- 
posure in  the  fact  that  we  never  hear  tin-  Lamenta- 
tions of  the  wounded  and  the  dying,  and  no  soldier 
raises  himself  to  his  knees  and  breaks  the  death 
sobs  and  groans  by  some  tearful  message  to  father 
or  to  mother.  If  the  scene  of  parting  in  either 
case  had  been  put  at  the  moment  of  greatest 
danger  or  of  intensest  emotion  it  would  have  vio- 
lated that  fine  and  dignified  feeling  which  Homer 
everywhere  observes.  The  placing  of  the  parting 
words  of  Hector  and  Andromache  and  of  Odvs- 
seus  and  Calypso  long  before  the  last  and  final 
farewell  is  a  perfect  example  of  the  Homeric  and 
Hellenic  reserve  which  is  best  expressed  by  the 
phrase,  m^v  ayav,  ("nothing  too  much"),  and 
which  induced  the  great  Attic  orators  to  close 
their  speeches  with  calmest  utterances.  The  same 
unerring  poetic  judgment  shows  itself  in  the  part- 
ing of  Hector  and  Andromache  and  in  the  parting 
of  Odysseus  and  Calypso. 

Just  at  the  moment  when  the  Trojans  seemed 

on  the  point  of  victory  an  eagle  appeared  on  the 

left  with  a  live  snake  in  its  talons.  The  snake 
kept  striking  the  neck  and  breast  of  its  captor 
until  the  eagle  was  forced  to  drop  it  and  fly  away, 
while  the  snake  fell  and  squirmed  within  the  ranks 
of  the   Trojans.     The   superstitions   Polydamas 


216  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

immediately  interpreted  the  omen  as  an  order 
from  Zeus  to  stop  the  battle,  even  though  the 
battle  was  apparently  hastening  to  so  successful 
an  issue.  This  advice  of  Polydamas  was  wonder- 
fully like  that  given  to  Nicias,  with  such  terrible 
results,  so  many  centuries  later  in  the  harbor  of 
Svracuse.  Hector  could  not  leave  the  battle  for 
the  sake  of  a  bird  and  a  snake,  and  he  angrily 
replied  to  the  seer:  "You  bid  me  put  my  trust 
in  wide-winged  birds;  I  care  not  for  them  and 
I  heed  them  not,  whether  they  move  toward  the 
right  and  the  rising  sun  or  toward  the  left  and 
the  regions  of  darkness.  One  omen  is  best,  to 
fight  for  native  land. ' '  This  utter  break  with  the 
superstitions  of  his  people  must  have  shocked 
many,  who  were  now  terrified  both  by  the  omen 
and  by  Hector's  evident  want  of  faith.  It  is  hard 
to  grasp  how  modern  this  sentiment  of  Hector 
is  and  to  remember  that,  centuries  after  Homer, 
great  generals  moved  their  armies  according  to 
the  aspect  of  the  liver  of  the  sacrificial  victims. 
Later  Hector  inspired  his  discouraged  men  with 
these  splendid  words : 

Fight  all  of  you  beside  the  ships  and  if  any  falls 
pierced  with  a  javelin  or  thrust  with  a  spear,  may  he 
meet  his  end  knowing  that  it  is  glorious  to  fall  fighting 
for  one's  native  land,  for  then  his  wife  and  his  children 
shall  remain  in  safety,  when  the  Greeks  have  fled  home 
in  their  ships. 

When,  at  last,  Achilles,  the  son  of  a  goddess, 
and  protected  by  divine  armor,  came  on  the  field, 
Hector  knew  that  he  was  no  match  for  him;  but 


BECTOB  -jit 

his  Bense  of  honor  and  his  love  for  his  «•  ry 
would  imt  permit  him  to  geek  his  own  safety  back 
of  the  walla  of  the  city.    Achilles  shouted  to  him: 

"Come  Dearer  that   vou  mav  the  sooner  find  \niir 

w 

death. "  Hector  without  any  illusions  and  with- 
out  fear  replied:  "Son  of  Peleus,  do  not   hope  to 

frighten  me  with  hard  ch  as  it"  I  were  a  child, 
since  I  too  am  able  to  utter  ooarse  and  reviling 

words.    I  know  that  thou  art  a  mightier  warrior 

and  that  thou  art  stronger  far  than  I."  The 
greatness  and  the  sadness  of  the  course  followed 
by  Hector  lay  in  this:  that  he  was  the  champion 
of  a  cause  which  was  distasteful  to  him,  fighti] 
a  foe  whom  he  regarded  as  his  superior,  and,  most 
pathetic  of  all,  he  could  not  hope  for  the  sympathy 
of  the  gods  in  a  cause  which  he  himself  con- 
demned. He  was  in  the  war  solely  as  a  defender 
of  his  family  and  his  state.  For  these  he  urged 
others  to  die  and  for  them  he  himself  gave  his 
life.  Xo  other  character  in  Homer  resembles 
Hector  in  the  motives  which  led  him  to  action  or 
in  the  gentle  forgetfulness  of  self  in  his  anxiety 
for  others.  It  is  a  strange  touch  of  the  poet's 
genius  that  the  last  words  spoken  in  regard  to 
Hector  should  be  from  the  lips  of  Helen,  who  had 
deserted  her  own  home  and  who  thought  of  others 
only  in  relation  to  her  own  happiness. 

The  breadth  of  the  poet's  sympathies  is  shown 
in  the  last  verse  of  the   Iliad:  "Thus  then  they 
buried  Hector  the  knight. M     The  first   verse  of 
the  poem  named  Achilles  the  Greek;  the  last  vers 
Hector  the  Trojan. 


218  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Hector  has  the  distinction  of  being  the  only 
person  who  is  named  in  every  one  of  the  twenty- 
four  books  of  the  Iliad.  Not  even  Achilles  shares 
in  this  honor,  since  Achilles  is  not  referred  to 
directly  or  indirectly  in  the  third  book.  Agamem- 
non, the  Greek  leader,  is  not  mentioned  in  books 
twelve,  twenty,  and  twenty-one.  Though  Hector 
is  named  in  every  book  of  the  Iliad,  he  is  not 
referred  to  in  a  single  book  of  the  Odyssey.  He 
is  solely  the  actor  of  a  single  poem  and  in  that 
poem  he  is  all  important.  Without  a  Hector  the 
plot  of  the  Iliad  has  no  existence.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  character  of  Hector,  with  his  seem- 
ing boldness  and  reputation  so  out  of  all  propor- 
tion to  his  actual  achievements,  is  at  first  sight 
extremely  baffling.  Mahaffy  regards  "the  char- 
acter and  position  of  Hector  as  the  strongest  and 
clearest  inconsistency  in  the  entire  Iliad."2  He 
tries  to  bring  harmony  by  assuming  that,  in  the 
original  Iliad,  Hector  was  superior  to  all  the 
Greeks  excepting  only  Achilles,  and  he  assumes 
that  his  various  discomfitures  before  Ajax, 
Diomede,  and  the  rest  were  added  by  bards  to 
glorify  these  different  Greeks  at  the  expense  of 
the  original  renown  of  Hector. 

Wilamowitz,  throughout  his  Die  Bias  und 
Homer,  assumes  that  Hector  has  been  taken  over 
from  some  previous  epic  written  exclusively  in 
his  honor,  and  he  has  named  this  poem  Das 
HeMorgedicht.  His  contention  is  that  the  re- 
dactor of  the  Iliad  took  fragments  from  this  epic 

2  History  of  Greek  Literature,  I,  87. 


BBCTOB 

and    fitted    them     into    the    pi  t     pc 

Bimple  fad  that  Sector  is  named  in  honk 

of  the  Iliad  Bhows  how  essentia]  he      to  the  plol 
and  that  without  liim  there  would  be  little  action. 
If  there  ever  was  an  original  poem  with  II 
as  its  protagonist,  it  musl  have  been  written  by 

a  Greek  hard  to  delight   a  Greek  audience.     Such 

a  thing  is  no  more  probable  than  that  a  Bpani 
bard  should  have  sumr  to  Spanish  audiences  the 
glories  of  Drake,  or  that   French  bardfl  Bhonld 
have  delighted  the  people  of   Prance  with  the 

glorious  exploits  of  the  Crown  Prince  of  (  h-rinany. 
1  know  that  the  Serhian  hards  sine;  of  their  OWU 
defeats  at  Ivossovo,  but  it  is  in  honor  of  their  own 
leaders,  and  not  to  glorify  the  leaders  of  the 
Turks.  A  certain  amount  of  praise  for  Eectoi 
was  entirely  proper  from  a  Greek  bard  and  before 
a  Greek  audience  when,  at  the  end,  even  that  hero 
falls  before  a  greater  champion  of  their  own. 
But  a  Greek  song  devoted  exclusively  to  Betting 
forth  the  glories  of  Hector  and  the  discomfiture 
of  the  Greeks  would  have  been  an  impossibility. 
Even  when  Hector  is  most  valiant  and  achieves 
the  most,  we  feel  that   he  is  a  tethered  hero,  and 

that  the  poet  resents  his  winning  any  glory  at 
the  expense  of  the  Greeks.  Generally  a  god  L8 
by  his  side;  or  the   god   really  vanquishes   the 

foe  and  then  allows  the  glory  to  Hector.  For, 
although  Achilles  puts  on  Hector  all  the  blame 
for  the  loss  of  Patroclus,  it  was  really  Apollo 
who  deserved  that  glory. 


220  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Bethe,3  following  Dummler,4  has  advanced  the 
theory  that  most  of  the  heroes  of  the  Iliad  were 
transferred  to  that  poem  from  other  songs  or 
ballads  and  that  in  those  original  songs  they  had 
nothing  to  do  with  Troy.  He  argued  that  Hector 
was  at  one  time  a  Theban  hero  and  the  fact  that  he 
appeared  as  fighting  at  Troy  might  be  explained 
by  the  assumption  that  the  original  traditions  of 
Hector  were  connected  with  a  Troy  in  Attica 
and  were  later  transferred  to  the  Troad.  This 
assumption  is  based  on  the  fact  that  there  was 
a  late  tradition  that  Hector's  grave  was  to  be 
found  at  Thebes.  Information  in  regard  to  the 
grave  of  Hector  is  given  in  a  scholium  to  N  1 : 

For  the  Thebans  being  beset  by  misfortunes  con- 
sulted the  oracle  in  regard  to  a  release,  and  the  oracle 
told  them  that  their  woes  would  cease  if  the  bones  of 
Hector  should  be  brought  from  Ophrynium  of  the  Troad 
and  buried  in  Thebes  at  a  place  designated  by  the 
oracle.     They  did  this  and  their  troubles  ceased.5 

If  Hector  had  really  been  a  Theban  hero,  this 
must  have  been  known  from  earliest  times  and 
would  have  been  mentioned  by  Theban  writers. 
We  are  fortunately  able  to  test  Theban  tradi- 
tions by  the  writings  of  two  early  poets,  Hesiod 
and  Pindar.  Hesiod  outranks  in  point  of  antiquity 
any  other  writer  except  Homer,  and  Pindar,  in 
the  matter  of  time,  has  but  few  rivals.  When  to 
Pindar's  antiquity  is  added  the  fact  of  his  great 

s  Neue  Jahrbiioher,  VII,  657,  XIII,  1. 

4  Studniczka,  Kyrene,  Anhang  II. 

5  This  oracle  and  scholium  are  discussed  by  Radtke,  Hermes 
XXXVI,  35. 


BECTOB  221 

wealth  of  myth  and  of  traditional  allusions,  I 
must  he  regarded  as  the  very  highesl  authority  for 

all  ancient  traditions,  especially  th0S€  in  ;my  way 

connected  with  Thebes.    These  two  poets,  Eesiod 

and  Pindar,  are  not  only  ancient,  hut,  what  is  of 
far  more  ini])ortance  in  the  present  matter,  they 
are  strikingly  independent  of  Homer,  since  they 
not  only  give  vast  stores  of  tradition  not  found 
in  Homer,  but  even  unhesitatingly  contradict  him.'' 
We  are  confident  therefore  that  in  ooming  to  these 
poets  we  come  to  unoontaminated  Bources  and 
that  respect  for  Homer  will  not  have  dried  up  the 
springs  of  Theban  tradition  in  regard  to  Hector. 
Hector  is  never  mentioned  in  any  of  the  poetry 
assigned  to  Hesiod.  The  one  Trojan  warrior 
whom  he  names  is  Aeneas.  He  tells  how  Aenei 
was  conceived  on  the  slopes  of  Mt.  Ida,  that  is, 
Aeneas  did  not  belong  to  a  European,  but  to  an 
Asiatic  Troy.  Hesiod,  moreover,  places  in  the 
Islands  of  the  Blest  those  warriors  who  had  gone 
in  ships  over  the  sea  to  recover  the  fair-haired 
Helen.  This  reference  is  most  instructive,  for 
it  shows  what  the  tradition  was  in  European 
Greece.  If  it  be  granted  that  the  (I reek  colonists 
or  exiles  took  their  old  Bongs  with  them  and  sub- 
stituted new  names  for  the  old,  putting  an  Asiatic 
Trov  where  once  an  Attic  Troy  had  been,  how  are 
we  to  account   for  the  fad  that  back  there  in  the 

« "Hector  as  a  Theban    Hero   in   the    Light   of    I 
Pimlar."  Am.  Jour,  of  PJML,  XX  X\  If. 

I  have  elsewhere  discussed  the  independence  ot  Bomer  m  shown 
in  Hesiod  and  Pindar  ("A  Comparative  Study  <>t*  Hesiod  and 
Pindar,"  Johns  Hopkins  University  dissertation,   1897  . 


222  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

old  home  a  Boeotian  poet  is  singing  of  that  same 
Asiatic  Troy?  Had  Hesiod  lived  a  few  centuries 
later  we  could  say  that  he  was  influenced  by 
Homer;  but  we  cannot  accept  that  answer  for  a 
poet  of  marked  independence  of  Homer,  and  who 
was  almost  if  not  quite  a  contemporary.  Hesiod 
does  not  afford  the  slightest  presumption  that 
Hector  in  his  day  was  regarded  as  a  Theban  hero. 
Pindar  regarded  Hector  with  unusual  affec- 
tion and  admiringly  called  him  the  "invincible 
and  steadfast  pillar  of  Troy. ' '  It  is  beyond  doubt 
that  this  Troy  was  not  in  Attica  but  was  the  Troy 
of  Asiatic  Troad,  for  Pindar  tells  how  glory 
bloomed  for  Hector  by  the  waters  of  the  Scaman- 
der.  This  poet  mentions  Hector  by  name  no  less 
than  six  times,  yet  he  never  suggests  that  he  was 
in  any  way  connected  with  Pindar's  Thebes.  He 
always  makes  him  the  defender  and  the  glory  of 
Asiatic  Troy.  Can  any  one  in  the  face  of  this 
significant  fact  assert  that  Pindar  knew  that  at 
one  time  this  much  admired  Hector  was  the  sup- 
port of  his  own  beloved  but  ill-starred  Thebes  and 
that  he  suppressed  that  knowledge  in  silence! 
The  knowledge  of  traditions  shown  in  the  works 
of  Pindar  proves  that  he  would  have  known  such 
a  tradition  if  there  had  been  one.  The  silence  of 
Pindar  in  regard  to  a  Theban  Hector  is  therefore 
absolute  proof  that  Hector  was  not  then  regarded 
as  having  any  connection  with  Thebes.  Not  only 
does  Pindar  sing  of  no  Hector  except  the  Trojan 
Hector,  but,  what  is  far  more  important,  he  has 


BECTOB 

in*  knowledge  of  thai  Sector  except  ba  he  found 
it  in  Homer,    [t  is  easy  to  put  on       Ingeronsoo 

p;i         :r  in  the   Iliad  which  justifies  and  explain 

every  Pindaric  reference  to  Hector.    Pindar  v. 

no  docile  follower  of   Homer,  Bfl    I    have  already 

shown.    Besides  differing  from  Homer,  he  often 

adds    details    not   mentioned    in    the    Iliad,      For 

example  (X.  in,  52),  he  tells  how  Achilles,  becaa 

of  his  unusual  lleetness  of  foot,  captured  deer 
without  nets  or  dog's.  This  is  a  touch  not  founded 
on  Homer,  yet  in  harmony  with  the  phrase  "the 
swift-footed  Achilles."  Pindar  adds  no  lines  and 
gives  no  new  features  to  the  Homeric  picture  of 
Hector.  The  problem  of  Hector  lies  right  at  the 
heart  of  the  Iliad.  That  hero  has  had  no  part  in 
any  previous  "Hektorgedicht,"  nor  in  any  ex- 
ploits connected  with  Thebes.  The  first  and  only 
poem  to  give  a  portrait  of  him  was  the  Iliad. 

In  the  first  thousand  lines  of  the  Iliad,  Achilles, 
Agamemnon,  Telamonian  Ajax,  and  the  other 
Ajax,  the  son  of  Oi'leus,  Idomeneus,  Diomed**. 
Xestor,  Menelaus,  Calchas,  and  Patroclus  are 
introduced.  The  prominent  Greek  actors  are 
marched  across  the  stage  at  the  wry  start;  then 
when,  in  later  scenes,  they  have  played  their  parts, 
they  reappear  at  the  games,  make  their  farewell 
bows,  and  disappear  with  no  trace  of  bitterness 
from  the  "wrath"  and  no  scars  from  their 
wounds.  They  are  thus  restored  to  tin1  condition 
in  which  they  were  before  the  "wrath"  began. 
Evidently    Homer    had    the    conception    of    the 


224  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Greek  heroes  distinctly  in  mind  from  the  start. 
Tradition  for  the  most  part  had  furnished  their 
names  and  had  already  settled  the  fate  of  each. 
Agamemnon  could  not  die  in  battle,  for  his  death 
was  reserved  for  his  return.  Odysseus,  Diomede, 
Nestor,  and  Menelaus  must  not  fall  at  Troy,  since 
their  home-coming  was  a  settled  part  of  the  epic 
saga ;  nor  could  any  warrior  win  glory  by  slaying 
Ajax.  The  Greek  leaders,  as  well  as  the  fate 
of  each,  were  already  fixed  by  their  own  tradition, 
which,  passing  on  from  one  generation  to  the 
next,  would  be  definite  and  exact  on  the  Greek 
side,  but  most  vague  and  deficient  concerning 
the  Trojans.  Homer  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
Trojans  except  as  Greek  pride  or  patriotism  pre- 
served it.  Although  the  Greek  leaders  pass  in 
review  at  once  and  we  know  who  are  to  be  the 
actors  in  subsequent  events,  there  is  no  similar 
introduction  of  the  Trojans.  Except  Hector  and 
Priam,  who  are  casually  referred  to  in  the  first 
book,  the  Trojans  are  named  only  when  they  act. 
Paris  does  not  enter  and  we  have  no  inkling  of 
his  connection  with  the  war  until  he  meets  Mene- 
laus in  the  duel.  Aeneas,  Glaucus,  Sarpedon, 
appear  first  in  E,  Helenus  makes  his  initial  bow 
in  Z,  Dolon  in  K,  Polydamas  in  A ;  Coon,  who  forces 
Agamemnon  to  withdraw,  and  Socus,  who  wounds 
Odysseus,  both  win  glory  and  death  at  their  first 
appearance.  Even  Euphorbus,  destined  to  have 
the  great  honor  of  wounding  Patroclus,  is  not 
named  previous  to  that  exploit.     The  poem  is 


HECTOR 


manifestly  written  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
Greeks;  the  Trojans  are  introduced  or  or< 
merely  thai  the  Greeks  maj  have  antagonist 

Eomer  appears  at  his  weakest  in  finding  oan 
and  exploits  \'<>v  the  Trojai        Tradition,  Greek 

tradition,  liad  supplied  him  with  very  few  foreign 

names,  and  so,  accordingly,  nearly  all  the  Tro 

jans   are   fitted   out    with   good   Greek   name-.      In 
hook    four    is    mentioned    a    Greek    by    the    name 

of  Chroming,  then  in  latei-  l ks  four  Trojans 

appear  bearing  that  same  name.  One  (J reek  and 
three  Trojans  have  the  Greek  name  Melanippns, 
one  Greek  and  two  Trojans  are  called  Antiphus, 
two  Trojans  have  the  name  Adrastus,  two  Asty- 
nons,  two  Ennomus,  two  Ophelestes,  two  Pylartes, 
two  Thersiloehus,  and  more  than  a  score  of  the 
Trojans,  such  as  Alastor,  Medon,  Noemon,  Oi 
tes,  are  identical  in  name  with  some  Greeks  of  the 
poem.     Tradition  failed  also  to  give    Homer  the 

name  of  Sector's  wife,  else  she  had  not  appeared 
with  the  Greek  name  Andromache.    Th  •  is 

true  of  his  BOn   Astynnax,  a-  well  as  of  his  half- 

brothers  and  brothers,  Deiphobns,  Belenus,  P«>ly- 
dorns,  Polites,  Antiphonns,  and  Agathon. 

Paris  is  the  only  one  of  the  Trojan  Leaders  who 

has   an   undisputed    foreign   nan  It    -  -   un- 

likely   that     tradition    OOOld    have    preserved    the 

name  of  the   son  ami   forgotten   the   name   of  the 
father;  henee  the  tradition   found  in   ApollodomS 

(ii,  <5,  4),  that    Priam  was  at   one  time  known 

Podarces,  is  probably  to  l»e  accepted  as  showing 


226  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

that  the  Greeks  regarded  Priam  as  a  foreign  name, 
which  they  rendered  in  their  own  speech  with 
Greek  equivalents.  If  Hector  ever  had  the  Trojan 
name  Darius,  Homer  gives  no  hint  that  he  knew 
it,  and  Hector  never  appears  in  Homer  except 
under  this  good  Greek  name.  Even  had  tradition 
told  how  a  foreign  prince  with  a  foreign  name 
sailed  to  Greece  to  entice  Helen,  it  had  not  given 
the  names  of  his  companions.  Accordingly  the 
poet  had  the  ship  built  by  a  Greek  Phereclus,  the 
son  of  the  Greek,  Tecton,  whose  sire  in  turn  also 
was  a  Greek,  Harmon.  Hector,  in  name,  dress, 
character,  and  all,  is  a  Greek  loaned  to  the  enemy ; 
by  these  same  tokens  Paris  is  foreign  throughout. 

My  explanation  for  all  the  difficulties  involved 
in  an  appreciation  of  the  parts  played  by  Hector 
and  Paris  in  the  action  of  the  Iliad  is  this :  Paris 
was  the  traditional  leader  and  champion  of  the 
Trojans,  but  for  moral  reasons  could  not  be  made 
the  protagonist  in  the  poem.  The  poet  therefore 
degraded  him  and  created  a  hero  with  sufficient 
nobility  of  character  to  win  sympathy  for  his 
cause.  Hector,  as  he  appears  in  Homer,  is  the 
creation  of  the  poet  who  conceived  the  idea  of  the 
Iliad;  without  Homer  there  would  have  been  no 
traditions  of  Hector. 

The  place  of  Paris  in  tradition  and  in  Homer 
will  be  first  considered.  We  know  little  of  the  con- 
tents of  the  Cyclic  poems,  yet  we  learn  that  Paris 
was  the  leading  actor  of  the  Cypria,  that  he  was 
a  person  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  called  upon 


IIK<  T<»K 


to  decide  the  oonteet  of  the  Lr«>dd«*sse8,  that  hf  took 
a  Beef  to  Gr<        to  secure  Belen,  and  that  on  his 

return  lie  was  able  to  nil!        the  wealthy  cit\ 

Bidon.     All  of  this  is  in  harmony  with  the   Iliad. 

even  if  not  definitely  expi  d.  The  <\>'*'<\>  of  no 
other  Trojan  find  any  place  in  thi       >ry  of  the 

'      nria.      The   phrase    found    in    the    summary 
this    poem    "and    Prot esilaus    died    at    the    ha: 

of  Sector"  is  not  an  independent  tradition,  hut 

is  founded  on  the   Iliad  and  in  plain  violation 
Homer,  as  will  appear  later.      In   tin*    Aethiof 
Achilles  is  slain  by  Paris  with  the  aid  of  Apollo. 
Xo  other  Trojan  is  named  in  the  Chrestomathia 
of  Proclus  as  sharing  in  the  events  of  this  poem. 
In  the  Mas  Parva  Paris  is  slain  by  Philoctetes, 
who   has  just   come   from   Lemnos.     Even   here 
Paris  is  not  slain  as  a  coward  or  in  flight,  but  Lfl 
bold  enough  to  face  Philoctetes  in  a  dneL     No 
other  Trojan  has   a  part    in   that   poem,   e 
Belenus,  who  like  a  traitor  informs  the  Greeks 
how  his  own  city  may  be  taken.     Thus  we  find 

that  in  the  first  three  poems  of  the  Cycle,  leaving 

the  Iliad  out  of  account,  Paris  is  the  only  Trojan 
whose  acts  are  of  sufficient  importance  to  receive 
mention  in  the  summary  bv  Proclus.  Paris  alone 
of  the  Trojans  had  the  honor  of  causing  the  death 

of  a  Greek  leader,  and  that  leader  was  none  other 
than  Achilles  himself. 

The  character  of  Paris  in  the  Iliad  invoh 
constant  contradictions.     The  first  great   contra- 
diction is  that  he  who  had  proved  himself  to  he 


228  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

such  a  craven  and  a  coward  should  be  introduced 
as  "Alexander  the  godlike."  Why  this  honoring 
name?  The  scholiast  to  M  93  says  that  Paris  was 
called  Alexander  since  he  defended  his  father- 
land when  the  foe  came  against  it.  Evidently 
the  honoring  titles,  " divine/ '  " godlike,"  "royal 
Alexander,"  which  at  first  glance  seem  so  in- 
appropriate in  Homer,  are  in  complete  harmony 
with  pre-Homeric  traditions.  The  second  contra- 
diction is  found  in  the  fact  that  a  Greek,  with  his 
feeling  that  to  be  beautiful  is  also  to  be  brave, 
/caXo?  zeal  ayaOos,  should  have  represented  a  coward 
as  handsome.  Paris  is  the  "fairest  in  form"  and 
because  of  his  beauty  the  Greeks  at  once  drew 
the  conclusion  that  he  was  the  Trojan  champion. 
It  was  the  physical  defects  in  Thersites  on  which 
the  poet  placed  the  greatest  emphasis,  and  Homer 
had  a  real  difficulty  in  representing  the  handsome 
figure  of  Paris  in  the  guise  of  a  poltroon,  capable 
of  the  ignoble  part  he  played  in  the  third  book. 
A  third  contradiction  is  found  in  the  continued 
influence  of  Paris.  After  fleeing  from  Menelaus 
and  disgracing  himself  and  his  cause,  he  should 
have  had  but  little  influence  or  power.  Yet  on 
the  evening  of  that  very  day,  when  Antenor  made 
the  inevitable  suggestion  that  the  oaths  be  kept 
and  Helen  with  her  possessions  be  returned  to  the 
Greeks,  Paris  arose  and  insultingly  refused  to 
consider  the  idea  of  returning  Helen.  Hector  was 
mute,  no  one  answered,  and  the  herald  was  sent 
to  report  to  the  Greeks  the  decision  of  Paris.    The 


SBCTOB 

power  of  Paris  was  so  <>ut  of  keeping  with  hi 
character  thai  Herodotus  (n,  L20)  oonld  onlj 
plain  this  contradiction  by  assuming  a  tradition 
according  to  which  Helen  had  never  been  in  Tn 
l.nt  was  detained  in  Egypt;  otherwise  H        r,  in 
spite  of  Paris,  would  have  delivered  her  to  tl 
(Jr.-.-:        it  is  also  to  be  noted  that,  though  the 

Other  married   sons   of    Priam   lived    in   the   san 
palace    with    their    father    (/    242),    Paris    had    a 
laee  all  his  own. 

Paris  is  no  coward  in  Homer  and  no  weakli] 
His  heroic  proportions  show  through,  despite  the 
efforts  of  the  poet   to  paint   him  as  a    mean   and 
timorous  warrior.     This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
he  and  not   Hector  determined  the  <]•  >n  of  tt 

assembly,    and    by    the    following   chance    detail-: 
Paris  was  a  leader  of  one  of  the  Larger  divisioi 
of  the  Trojans   (M  93).     When  Aeneas  was  >ore 
press  d  by  the  Greeks  he  sought  help,  "trying  to 
iix  his  eye  on  Paris"  (N  490).     In  the  very  thick 

of  the  oontesl  Hector  was  much  enoour       I  by 

finding  Paris  "arousing  his  companions  and  urg- 
ing them  to  fight."     (N  7«i»i.)     Moreover,  it  w 
the  skill  and  bravery  of  Paris  (A  504)  that  saved 
to  the  Trojans  the  fighting  of  the  third  day's 

struts:! 

Only  one  Greek  of  any   importance  was  -lain 

in  the  action  of  the  Iliad,  and  comparatively  few 
were  wounded.     Paris  was  the  only  Trojan  to 

wound  a  Greek  of  the  firsl  rank  who  was  not  him- 
self  slain.      EuphorbuS   and    Hector,    who   caused 


230  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

the  death  of  Patroclus,  Pandarus,  who  wounded 
Menelaus,  Coon,  who  pierced  Agamemnon,  and 
Socus,  who  stabbed  Odysseus,  paid  for  their  brief 
glory  with  their  lives.  But  Paris,  without  divine 
aid,  wounded  Diomede,  Machaon,  and  Eurypylus, 
slew  Euchenor,  Menesthius,  and  Deiochus ;  yet  he 
himself  escaped.  His  greatness  in  Homer  is  of 
a  like  character  with  that  in  the  Cypria,  Aethiopis, 
and  Ilias  Parva. 

Paris  was  an  archer,  but  that  was  no  disgrace 
despite  the  anger  of  Diomede  at  being  shot  with 
an  arrow.  A  people  who  regarded  the  ambush  as 
the  place  of  greatest  honor  (A  227)  and  a  tradition 
which  gave  glory  to  such  archers  as  Teucer  and 
Philoctetes,  or  made  the  bow  of  Heracles  his 
greatest  possession,  and  the  bow  of  Odysseus 
the  arbiter  of  marriage — these  could  not  have 
considered  skill  in  archery  a  source  of  infamy. 
Paris'  sole  weakness  was  moral  weakness.  Great 
as  he  was  in  tradition  and  is  in  Homer,  the  false 
friend  and  adulterer  could  not  be  permitted  a 
position  of  epic  leadership.  No  people  under  the 
control  of  such  a  leader  as  Paris  could  win  sym- 
pathy. Tradition  furnished  the  Trojans  with  no 
other  leader,  therefore  the  poet  must  create  one. 

Hector  has  no  place  in  the  pre-Homeric  tradi- 
tion as  given  in  the  Cypria.  In  that  poem  his  name 
is  found  but  once,  where  it  is  said  that  he  slew 
Protesilaus.  Homer  knew  nothing  of  this,  as  his 
account  of  the  death  of  that  warrior  (B  698  ff.) 
shows.    In  this  passage  in  the  Catalogue  it  is  said 


HECTOB 
that  a  Dardanian  man  dew  Protesilaus. 

cannot    refer  to   Sector,  sine    II-himt   in-v.-r   uses 
the  word   Dardanian   for  Trojai         Tin-  authoi 

the  CypriOi  with  the  plot  of  the  Iliad  before  him, 

could  not  Bee  Why  so  important   a  her  '<>r 

had  no  Btanding  in  tradition  outside  of  II' 
and  so  created  an  exploit    for  him   l»y  quietly 

removing    the    Bomeric    "Dardanian    man"    and 

substituting  Sector,     Bere  the  attempt  to  give 

Hector   a    position    in    the    Cycle   which    was    not 
wan-anted    by    pre-Homeric    tradition    is    evident 

and  unmistakable. 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  observation  that 
many  of  the  leaders  in  the  events  described  by 
the  J  Had  have  designations  which  have  no  ade- 
quate explanation  in  the  action  of  the  poem  itself. 
Priam,  who  does  not  and  could  not  wield  a  spear, 
is  none  the  less  "Priam  of  good  ashen  Bpear," 
and,  though  withdrawn  from  planning,  is  still 
"valiant  in  council."  Achilles,  whether  he  be 
standing  or  seated,  is  " swift-foot edn  or  "fleet  of 
foot,"  yet  on  the  one  occasion  when  he  has  the 
opportunity  to  show  his  tleetness  of  foot  he  was 
unable  to  overtake  Hector.  He  must  needs  receive 
the  help  of  Athena,  who  orders  him  to  refn 
himself  while  she  indue-  Elector  to  come  near. 
The  simple  fact  that  an  epithet  is  applied  to 
Achilles  which  has  no  interpretation  in  the  events 
of  the  Iliad  shows  that  lie  is  a  traditional  h 
and  not  a  new  creation  of  the  poet.     The  epithet 

7 See  Leaf,   Troy,   159. 


232  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

must  have  its  explanation  elsewhere.  Odysseus 
early  in  the  Iliad  is  called  (B  278)  "the  city- 
sacking  Odysseus, ' '  the  reason  for  which  is  found 
not  in  the  Iliad,  but  in  outside  tradition.  Many 
other  examples  might  be  given,  but  these  suf- 
ficiently illustrate  the  principle  that  in  the  Iliad 
certain  epithets  carry  the  implicit  proof  of  tra- 
ditions other  than  those  told  by  the  poet.  If 
Hector  be  an  old  and  traditional  hero  he  should 
bring  into  the  poem  with  him  some  traces  of  his 
earlier  existence.  In  the  Iliad  there  are  twenty- 
seven  various  epithets  applied  to  Hector — an  un- 
rivaled richness  and  variety  of  epithet — yet  not 
one  of  these  refers  to  any  relationship,  trait,  or 
quality  not  shown  in  the  poem  itself.  The  Iliad 
furnishes  a  full  explanation  for  every  attribute 
given  to  Hector  by  Homer.  If  the  number  of 
epithets  were  small,  this  might  be  due  to  accident. 
Here,  however,  chance  can  have  no  part,  and  we 
may  confidently  assume  that  the  tradition  which 
among  so  many  epithets  has  left  no  traces  of  its 
influence  had  no  influence  to  leave,  and  that  the 
character  of  Hector  was  beyond  its  power  to  shape 
or  change. 

As  already  stated,  the  Trojan  leader,  Paris, 
whom  tradition  furnished,  was  for  moral  reasons 
unworthy  to  be  the  great  leader  of  either  side. 
The  poet  was  therefore  obliged  to  substitute 
another  whose  human  and  moral  excellencies 
fitted  him  for  leadership.  The  degradation  of 
Paris  involved  one  great  contradiction,  namely, 


EECTOB 

the  impression  that  the  warrior  who  did       much 
was  a  coward,    The  creation  of  Sector  invoh 
the  second  great  contradiction,  namely,  the  im- 
pression that  the  warrior  who  did  SO  Little  was  a 

mighty  champion.    Tradition  narrowed  the  p 
range  in  either  case,    Ii<"  might  create  a  hero,  hut 

he  did  nol  create  a  war.  The  prowess  of  the 
Trojans  is  described  only  in  vagu 
Binoe  no  Greek  of  independent  importance  is  slain 
during  the  course  of  the  Iliad.  Patroolus  is  promi- 
nent merely  because  of  his  intimacy  with  Achilles. 
and  besides  him  only  two  of  any  consequence  fall. 
Medon,  the  bastard  son  of  Ajax,  the  son  of  <  hleus, 
and  the  colorless  Tlepolemus.  On  the  Trojan 
side  the  slaughter  is  almost  complete;  Adrastos 
(the  Greek  names  deserve  notice),  Astempaeus, 
Dolon,  Euphorhus,  Hippothous,  (Vhriones,  Ly- 
caon,  Socus,  Coon,  Pandarus,  Sarpedon,  and 
Hector,  all  perish.  Paris  is  the  only  Trojan  to 
wound   a    Leader   and   then   escape   with    his    life. 

Evidently  the  strength  of  tradition  tied  Homer's 

hands  and  gave  Paris  a  charmed  life  in  the  Iliad. 

Hector  receives  high  praise  in  genera]  tern  -. 

hut   the  events   of  the   Iliad   give  no   warrant    for 
assigning  him  a   high   place  as  a   soldier.      He   is 

found  retreating  at  his  first  appearance  in  battle, 

no  match  for  Ajax  in  the  duel,  is  almost  slain  by 

Dioniede  with  a  spear,  and  by  Ajax  with  a   I 

fainting  each  time;  and  he  flies  before  Odysseus, 

Agamemnon,     PatroduS,      Hiomede,     Ajax,     and 
Achilles.     It  is  only  as  a  man,  a  son,  and  a  father 


234  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

that  Hector  really  wins  respect;  that  is,  just  in 
those  qualities  where  he  may  appear  noble  with- 
out fighting  the  Greeks. 

Why  is  Hector  so  great  as  a  man,  so  secondary 
as  a  soldier?  If  one  will  read  the  list  of  the 
Trojans  he  will  find,  as  already  noted,  that  with 
few  exceptions  they  have  Greek  names ;  hence  are 
probably  Greek  adaptations  or  creations.  The 
Greeks  had  their  own  traditions  of  their  own 
leaders  conducting  a  war  against  Troy  to  recover 
Helen,  who  had  been  taken  from  Menelaus  by 
Paris.  Paris  bears  a  foreign  name,  his  part  in 
tradition  is  sure ;  but  tradition,  so  far  as  the  Tro- 
jans were  concerned,  went  little  further.  It  did 
not  tell  who  built  the  ship,  and  so  the  poet  had  it 
built  by  a  Greek  with  a  long  line  of  Greek  ances- 
tors. The  name  Hector  also  has  a  good  Greek 
derivation  and  is  surely  Greek.  It  is  doubtful  if 
the  quarrel  between  Achilles  and  Agamemnon  had 
a  larger  place  in  the  early  Greek  traditions  of  Troy 
than  the  quarrel  between  Achilles  and  Odysseus, 
which  is  given  but  ten  verses  in  the  eighth  book  of 
the  Odyssey  (0  73  if.).  At  the  opening  of  the  Iliad 
the  Greeks  are  before  Troy,  and  the  Trojans 
within  the  walls.  The  Greeks  lose  no  leader, 
warrior,  or  king  of  real  importance.  At  the  close 
of  the  poem  both  sides  are  in  the  same  relative 
positions  in  which  they  were  at  the  beginning. 
On  the  Trojan  side  the  slaughter  has  been  almost 
annihilation.  Those  who  fell,  Adrastus,  Pan- 
darus,  Hector,  and  the  rest,  were  for  the  most 


BSCTOB 
pari   created   to   be  participants   in   the 

occasioned  by  the  wrath  of  Achilles.     The)    ne 

had  an  existence  elsewhere,  and  l>y  their  death 
the  poft  accounted  for  their  abeenoe  from  rab- 

quenl  events  of  the  epic  tradition.     Thia  e 
plains   the  contradictions    in    the   character 
Sector.    The  Greek  Leaden  were  already  known 
and  their  fates  determined.    Tradition  had  de- 
cided  that   Ajax   was   to    fall   by   his   own    hand, 
Achilles  to  be  slain  by  Pari-.  Agamemnon  by  his 
wife   and  her   paramour;   the   fate   of   each    v. 
already  settled.    What  was  there  left  for  Hector? 
Xo  new  Greek  general  of  outstanding  importance 
could  be  added,  and  no  local  hero  could  be  re- 
placed, any  more  than  a  modern  novel  dealing 
with  a  modern  war  could  add  a  new  and  important 
general  to  the  list  of  famous  heroes.    Homer  then 
was  forced  to  make  a  Trojan  champion  without 
the  privilege  of  allowing  him  to  slay  any  one  of 
the    really    great    Greeks.      Hector's    greatnec 
therefore,  is  to  be  human  and  not  military.     1  v 
so  he  must  have  some  military  glory,  hence  the 

poet  created  the  character  of  Patrochis. 

Patroclua  do.--  not  appear  in  the  Catalogue  of 

the    Ships,    is   not    named    in    the    Cypi 

under  tin1  influence  of  the  Iliad,  where  it  Lb  Baid 
"Patroclus  taking  Lycaon  to  Lemnoe  Bold  him." 
Here  the  author  of  the  Gypria,  unable  to  explain 

the  ahsence  of  Patroclus  from  tradition,  resha: 
the  storv  of  Lycaon  as  found  in  Homer,  to  g 
Patroclus  a  place   in  hi-   poem.      In   the    Iliad   it 


236  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

was  Achilles  and  not  Patroclus  who  sold  Lycaon 
(O  78).  Evidently  the  author  of  the  Cypria 
changed  the  Iliad  to  secure  a  little  glory  for 
Patroclus,  in  the  same  manner  he  gave  to  Hector 
the  honor  of  slaying  Protesilaus.  There  were  no 
families  claiming  descent  from  Patroclus,  and  the 
poet  explains  his  lack  of  heroic  following  by  the 
simple  device  of  having  him  slay  one  of  his  youth- 
ful companions,  and  then  go  into  exile. 

There  was  no  place  for  Phoenix  in  a  poem 
which  exalted  Patroclus,  since  each  owed  his 
prominence  to  the  friendship  of  Achilles.  The 
creation  of  Hector  involved  the  degradation  of 
Paris;  the  creation  of  Patroclus  the  practical 
elimination  of  Phoenix.  Homer,  like  an  Athenian 
father,  could  cause  the  death  of  no  children  but 
his  own;  Patroclus  he  could  expose,  but  tradi- 
tion's child,  Phoenix,  he  must  not  kill.  So  he 
might  slay  Hector,  and  also,  just  because  he  was 
the  poet's  own,  he  may  have  made  him  his  mouth- 
piece to  express  his  own  advanced  ideas  on  re- 
ligion, patriotism,  and  domestic  relations.  In 
religion  Hector  is  frankly  rationalistic.  He  must 
have  shocked  Homer's  hearers,  as  he  did  the 
scholiast,  by  his  bold  refusal  to  consider  plain 
omens  (M  237),  and  must  have  voiced  the  poet's 
patriotism  when  he  told  the  Trojans  the  glory 
which  hallowed  one  who  died  in  defense  of  his 
fatherland.  His  ideals  of  domestic  relations  are 
shown  in  the  tenderness  with  which  Hector  treats 
Andromache.    It  is  certainly  worthy  of  note  that 


HECTOR  237 

this  devoted  husband  should  have  been  reared  in 
a  polygamous  household  and  should  himself  have 
championed  a  war  founded  on  treachery  and 
adultery.  In  Hector  the  poet  seems  to  have  laid 
aside  his  mask  and  to  show  his  own  features. 

The  bitterness  which  Athena  and  Hera  felt 
toward  Hector  followed  him  even  after  his  death. 
They  were  both  indignant  at  the  mere  suggestion 
that  his  corpse  be  spared  the  ignominy  of  being 
thrown  to  the  dogs.  This  malignity  cannot  be 
explained  by  anything  which  has  happened  in 
the  poem.  The  reason  is  that  Hector  was  the 
champion  in  a  war  due  to  the  scorning  of  their 
charms.  He  was  hated  not  for  his  own  sake  but 
for  his  cause.  Hector  plays  the  part  in  the  Iliad 
that  Paris  took  in  tradition,  and  just  this  fact, 
that  he  is  substituting  for  Paris,  explains  their 
rage  against  him.  The  anger  they  felt  for  Paris 
must  be  spent  on  the  one  who  assumed  his  place. 
This  does  not  mean  that  the  part  taken  by  Hector 
in  the  scenes  of  the  Iliad  was  ever  taken  by  Paris, 
for  none  of  these  scenes  existed  before  Homer. 
But  in  tradition  it  was  Paris  who  was  the  leader 
of  the  Trojans,  and  it  was  against  him  that  Hera 
and  Athena  were  both  enraged.  With  that  tra- 
dition as  a  background,  Homer  created  a  new 
poem.  The  anger  of  Achilles  was  essentially  the 
poet's  own,  the  anger  of  these  two  goddesses 
against  the  Trojan  leader  he  found  as  a  definite 
part  of  the  existing  tradition.  When,  therefore, 
Homer  created  a  new  leader,  that  anger  was  an 
entailment  on  that  leadership. 


23?  THE  rXITY  OF  HOSIER 

Milton  stood  in  much  the  same  relation  to  his 
nrces  as  Homer  stood  to  his.  Milton  must  have 
an  Adam,  an  Eve.  a  Garden  of  Eden,  a  Satan,  a 
Tree  of  Forbidden  Fruit ;  the  tempter  must 
pear  in  the  form  of  a  serpent  and  the  woman 
mast  be  the  hrst  to  fall.  All  these  the  poet  found 
in  the  Bible  storv  and  thev  must  be  retained.  But 
the  poetry,  the  descriptions,  and  most  of  the  inci- 
dents were  his  own.  Homer  likewise  had  a  list 
of  Greek  heroes,  and  a  brief  referen:e  to  the 
wrath  or  Achilles:  he  was  taiuiliar  with  the  storv 
of  the  rape  of  Helen  by  Paris,  a  prin:e  ■::  Tr:y. 
Tradition  supplied  him  with  scant  information 
in  reg  i  3  tc  the  Trojans,  hence  the  lon^:  list  of 
Trojans  with  Greek  names.  Although  tradition 
told  :  the  drat::  o:  such  hrst-elass  Greek  heroes 
-  Protesilaus.  Palameues.  Achilles,  Ajax  at 

Troy,  it  told  of  the  death  of  none  daring  the 
wrath  of  Achilles.     Accordingly  the  poet  had  I 
content  himself  with  the  death  of  bo  subordinate 
a  1        .-r  as  Patroclus. 

The  Iliad  is  not  the  production  of  a  poet  who 
reshaped  and  refitted  the  work  of  -;:hvrs  into  a 
more   perfect   whole,   who  found   his  d  rs 

ady  made  and  retouched  them  now  at  this 
place,    now    at    that,   who    added    a   little    he 
and  rem    ~ed  a  little  It   is  the  work  of 

a  poet  who  largely  a     ted  his   own  cha:        rs 
and   g;         fcfa  m   their  n        a.     Homer   was   the 
first  poet  to  draw  the  port         of  Hector  and  I 
give  him  a  name,   a   Greek  common  noun,   and 


II i:<  TOR 

make  it  a  proper  noun,  the  name  of  a  hero.  How 
transparent  most  of  the  names  ghren  to  Hector 
and  his  family,  Astyanax,  Deiphobus,  Polydora 
Polites,  Antiphonus,  and  Agathon !  But  the 
names  of  those  heroes  who  undoubtedly  belonged 
to  tradition,  names  such  as  Peleus,  TydeUB,  Ajax, 
Icarius,  and  Bellerophon,  do  not  so  easily  show 
their  origin.  Why  are  these  names  so  dark  while 
the  names  of  Hector  and  his  familv  are  so  trans- 
parent  ?  The  reason  is  this  :  the  names  of  Hector 
and  his  brothers,  except  Paris,  do  not  belong  to 
tradition  and  are  not  traditional  names.  They 
are  names  put  together  by  Homer  himself.  There 
may,  indeed,  be  tradition  in  Homer,  but  it  is  only 
an  incident ;  his  real  aim  is  poetry. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  ILIAD  AND  THE  ODYSSEY 

We  know  nothing  of  Homer's  sources  or  of 
the  patterns  which  he  followed — if  he  had  any 
patterns  to  follow.  Not  a  line,  not  a  reliable 
reference  to  any  piece  of  earlier  literature  has 
been  preserved.  There  seems  to  be  a  possible 
allusion  to  the  Argonautic  expedition,  but  all  the 
poems  dealing  with  that  adventure  are  much  later 
than  Homer,  and  may  be  based  on  inferences 
drawn  from  Homer  rather  than  from  earlier 
poetry.  The  tales  of  Meleager,  of  Nestor's  young 
manhood,  of  the  Amazons,  and  all  the  others  may 
be  susceptible  of  a  similar  interpretation. 

There  is  thus  only  the  scantiest  material,  and 
that  doubtful,  from  which  to  reconstruct  pre- 
Homeric  poetry.  And  yet  there  must  have  been 
poets  before  Homer.  The  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey 
show  no  experiments,  no  hesitancy  in  forcing  a 
recalcitrant  language  into  a  difficult  poetic  meter. 
The  grace  and  ease  with  which  the  words  of 
Homer  fall  into  dactylic  rhythm  could  have  come 
only  after  ages  of  poetic  development.  The 
meter  makes  use  of  a  long  and  difficult  verse,  a 
verse  which  is  far  removed  from  the  movement 
of  primitive  songs.     Language   so  rich  and   so 


THE   ILIAD  AND  THE  0DY8  241 

complicated  afl  Homer's  contains  within  it-. "it"  t! 
evidence  of  the  heritage  of  many  generations  i 
poets.  It  is  doubtful  it'  M ilton 's  majesi ic  \ 
more  removed  from  the  ordinary  dail  tfa  in 

the  time  of  Cromwell  than  the  Language  of  Homer 

was  from  that  of  tin*  common  man  in  that  early 
day.     The  simple   fact    that    there  are   live  ditT- 

t  forms  for  the  infinitive* 'Mo  be"  (e"'a<,  fppaw^ 
eleven,  epiiev,  e^iev)  and  four  formfl  for  the  simple 
] .reposition  uinn  (eV,  My  eiV,  «W),  all  metrically 
different,  shows  that  the  poet  was  not  using  the 

language  of  the  common  people,  hut  a  Language 

of  poetry  in  which  these  various  forms  had  hern 
preserved. 

A  comparison  of  this  language  with  any  prose 
rendering,  however  early  and  in  whatever  dialect, 
will  show  its  superlative  poetic  character.  This 
poetic  cast  can  not  be  the  work  of  a  single  man  nor 
the  result  of  the  wide  use  of  poetic  licene  For 
no  people  would  permit  the  misuse  or  the  mispro- 
nunciation of  their  own  language,  yel  they  would 
hear  with  delight  old  or  poetic  forms.  Our  own 
use  of  rare  and  old  words  in  poetry  and  in 
devotion  shows  something  akin  to  the  poetic  sur- 
vivals in  Homer. 

All  that  we  may  in  confidence  say  of  the  pa 

who  lived  before  Homer  is  that  they  provided  him 
with  a  language  suited  t<>  the  meter  and  to  the 
theme  of  his  great  poems.  The  interval  between 
the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  cannot  have  been  ;t, 

if  we  may  judge  from  their  lamruage  and   from 


242  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

the  civilization  which  both  picture,  and  also  from 
the  production  of  other  great  pieces  of  literature 
in  other  ages  and  in  other  lands.  Society  is  not 
long  content  with  any  one  style  of  excellence.  The 
enthusiasm  which  calls  forth  and  rewards  any  one 
species  of  genius  is  soon  spent. 

Had  Homer  lived  at  the  end  of  the  sixth 
century,  he  would  probably  have  been  a  lyric 
poet;  a  generation  later  he  would  have  been  a 
dramatist;  and  in  the  next  generation  he  might 
have  been  a  writer  of  comedy,  a  philosopher,  or 
an  orator.  Aeschylus,  who  ' '  was  the  first  to  raise 
tragedy  to  the  rank  of  real  literature, ' n  was  under 
thirty  years  of  age  when  Sophocles  was  born,  and 
with  the  death  of  Sophocles  Greek  tragedy  had 
run  its  creative  course.  State  and  religious  sup- 
port of  the  drama  exerted  a  most  conservative 
influence,  but  despite  this  support  the  production 
of  Greek  tragedies  as  real  literature  practically 
coincided  with  the  life  of  a  single  man,  Sophocles. 
In  like  manner  old  comedy,  middle  comedy,  and 
new  comedy,  each  ran  a  brilliant  and  a  brief 
career;  and  the  genealogies  of  Pherecydes,  re- 
puted to  be  the  first  man  in  Athens  to  apply  prose 
to  the  uses  of  literature,  were  separated  by  hardly 
a  generation  from  the  history  of  Thucydides — 
greatest  of  all  histories. 

It  was  not  that  men  capable  of  writing  lyric 
poetry  ceased  to  be  born  after  the  Persian  Wars ; 
it  was  not  that  poets  capable  of  dramatic  efforts 

i  Flickinger,  The  Greek  Theater  and  Its  Drama,  2. 


THE   ILIAD  AND  THE  0DY8SBY 
did  not  appeal  after  the  age  of  Pericles;  it  v. 

because  the  tastes  and  the  impu!  »t*  men   Wl 

different.      No    one    could    'TTTCftginfl    that     Milton, 

Were    he    now    living,    would    turn    his    hand    to    a 

r<ir<i<lise  Lost,  or  Cervantes  his  to  a  Don  (J  < 

or  that  Dante  would  take  up  anew  the  problems 

of  the  Inferno.     We  have  no  knowledge  of  any 

ople  who  could   in   two  different    centuries    in- 
spire  kindred   masterpieces   of   original    geni 
The  period  which  could  inspire  short  Bongfl  might 

last,  but  the  influences  which  called  into  beini^ 
long  epic  poems  must  certainly  have  been  very 
brief. 

The  tradition  that  Homer  and  Hesiod  once 
contested  for  the  prize  of  poetic  excellence,  and 
that  Hesiod  won,  is  probably  only  another  way  of 
saying  that  the  Greeks  soon  tired  of  the  creative 
works  of  the  imagination  and  preferred  for  a 
season  the  more  practical  descriptions  of  daily 
life,  and  the  calm  and  unimaginative  tales  of 
theology.  The  utter  collapse  of  the  creative  epic 
spirit  as  shown  in  the  poetry  of  the  Epic  Oy 
if  we  base  our  opinion  of  the  merits  of  these  poems 
on  the  estimate  of  competent  ancient  authorities, 
shows  that  Homer  had  no  successors.  The  II: 
and  the  Odyssey  represent  the  golden  age  of  epic 
poetry,  and  golden  ages  are  always  brief. 

The  Greeks  at  all  times  took  great  pride 
in  authorship.  Hesiod,  the  earliest  poet  after 
Homer,  informs  us  that  "The  Muses  at  one  time 
taught  Hesiod  the  gift  of  beautiful  Bong,"  thus 


244  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

enriching  the  world  with  his  own  name;  Alcman 
tells  us  that  "Alcman  composed  these  verses  and 
this  song";  Theognis  at  the  very  beginning  of 
his  poem  says,  "These  verses  are  by  Theognis 
of  Megara."  Hecataeus,  Herodotus,  as  well  as 
Thucydides,  each  begins  his  history  with  his  own 
name  and  an  account  of  his  own  authorship. 
Pheidias  is  said  to  have  put  his  own  likeness  on 
the  shield  which  he  made  for  the  statue  of  Athena ; 
and  similarly  statues,  votive  tablets,  and  painted 
vases  were  in  classical  times  frequently  marked 
with  the  name  of  the  artist  and  even  with  the 
name  of  his  father  also  and  his  home.  This  desire 
for  glory  made  it  unnecessary  to  offer  valuable 
prizes  at  the  great  games — the  ambition  for  per- 
sonal renown  was  incentive  enough.  It  was  this 
passion  for  personal  glory  that  made  each  of  the 
Greek  heroes  at  Salamis  write  his  own  name  as 
the  one  who  had  done  the  most  to  achieve  that 
victory.  The  Greeks  in  all  these  respects  were 
totally  unlike  their  eastern  neighbors,  so  that  no 
deductions  in  regard  to  oriental  origins,  except  by 
contrast,  are  of  any  value.  The  eminent  Orien- 
talist, Professor  Jastrow,  says:2 

Authorship  counted  for  little  in  the  ancient  Orient. 
Greek  culture  with  its  emphasis  on  individualism  may 
be  said  to  have  invented  the  idea  of  authorship,  so 
far  as  it  involves  the  individual's  claim  to  his  mental 
product.  We  have  no  specific  word  for  author  in  ancient 
Hebrew,  but  merely  a  term  ordinarily  rendered  as 
"scribe,"  which  may  be  used  indifferently  for  a  secre- 

2  Jastrow,  M.,  Hebrew  and  Babylonian  Traditions,  285. 


THE  ILIAD  AND  Tin-:  ODYSSEY 

tary    who   writes    the    dictation,    for   OH6    who    COpiei 

compiles  what  another  bai  composed,  ai  well  i  ae 

who  indites  an  original  composition. 

Another  reaoll  of  this  method  of  literary  production 
in  the  ancient  Orient  was  thai  no  l»o«.k  was  produced 

at    a   single  sitting,   as    it    were.      A    DOOI    was   a:  a 

Compilation:   it   L'rrw   from   a<;e  to  a  «_'••.  much   as  a 

grows  with  each  repetition. 

The  Greeks  lived  in  another  world  from  this 
world  of  the  Orient  in  which  the  "scribe"  w, 
simply  the  man  who  writes;  in  Greek  the  word 
poet  means  the  creator,  the  man  who  product 
something  worth  while.  The  very  name  shows 
the  great  honor  in  which  the  poet  was  held. 
Though  the  books  of  the  Orient  grew  and  changed 
from  age  to  age,  we  know  of  no  literary,  no  non- 
scientific,  work  of  the  Greeks  which  was  not  either 
finished  by  the  author  himself,  or  left  perma- 
nently incomplete.  Works  of  erudition  or  of 
philosophy  may  well  have  been  preserved  by 
pupils  in  the  spirit  in  which  these  were  receive.  1 
from  the  lips  of  the  master,  but  this  was  nol  true 
of  great  literature.  Thucydides  died  leaving  his 
history  incomplete  and  Xenophon  undertook  to 
tell  the  story  of  the  Peloponnesian  War  for  the 
period  Thucydides  left  unfinished.  But  it  was  his 
own  Hettenica;  he  did  not  try  to  add  to  or  ohang 
what  Thucydides  had  written. 

The  permanency  of  Greek  traits  makes  it  in 
unlikely  that  a  poet  who  wrote  the  parting  BOene 
between  Hector  and  Andromache,   the   speech 
of  the  embassy,  the  ransoming  of  the  body   of 


246  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Hector,  the  journey  of  Telemachus,  or  the  wan- 
derings of  Odysseus  would  have  been  willing  to 
give  up  his  own  reputation  for  the  glory  of  an- 
other, or  that  he  would  have  reshaped  the  poetry 
already  written  by  another  so  that  he  might  suc- 
cessfully escape  from  the  fame  of  his  own  great 
creations.  Sir  Philip  Sidney's  famous  renuncia- 
tion of  the  water  he  so  feverishly  craved  was 
downright  selfishness  compared  with  the  man  who 
gave  these  great  scenes  of  poetry  to  Homer  and 
slipped  stealthily  away  with  such  secrecy  that  his 
gift  was  unnoticed  for  nearly  three  thousand 
years.  Sir  Philip  knew  that  at  least  two  persons 
were  conscious  of  his  renunciation,  the  man  who 
drank  the  water  and  the  man  who  carried  it,  but 
the  poet  who  gave  all  this  glory  to  Homer  had  no 
such  satisfaction — all  he  craved  was  to  escape 
detection.  And  the  man  who  did  this  was  a  self- 
conscious  Greek! 

The  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  were  never  anony- 
mous, they  were  never  quoted  as  the  work  of  some 
unknown  poet,  and  they  were  never  assigned  to 
any  other  poet  than  to  Homer.  The  theory  that 
the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  are  the  anonymous 
creation  of  a  long  era,  traditional  poems  produced 
by  many  bards  in  many  ages,  makes  an  apprecia- 
tion of  Greek  civilization  and  Greek  literature 
impossible,  and  confuses  the  Hebrew  copying 
scribe  with  the  exalted,  creative  Greek  poet.  Just 
this  confusion,  however,  called  into  being  Mur- 
ray's Rise  of  the  Greek  Epic. 


THE    ILIAD   AND   TDK    0DY8S1  IT 

No  port  ever  put  a  higher  estimate  on  I 

poetry  than  Homer  puts  on  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odyssey.     He  says  of  Penelope  that   the  gloiy 

her  excellence  will  never  parish,  that  the  gods  will 
preserve  her  fame  in  pleasing  song.    Odysseus 

tells  the  Phaeacians  that  he  is  in  the  thoughts 
all    men    and    his   glory    has    reached    tin- 
Helen  consoles  herself  with  the  conviction  that, 
after  all,  perhaps  the  Trojan  war  and  all  its  w 
were  designed  by  Zeus  that  she  and  they  who  have 
suffered  most  may  serve  for  a  song  among  the 
generations  yet  unborn,  and  Alcinous,  when  he 
notices  the  emotions  which  Odysseus  can  not  con- 
ceal whenever  he  hears   the  story  of  the  woes 
endured  by  the  Trojans  and  the  Argives,  tries  to 
comfort  him  by  saying:  "Perhaps  the  gods  have 
brought  on  these  very  woes  and  decreed  destruc- 
tion to  men,  that  generations  yet  to  be  shall  have 
the  boon  of  song."    Milton's  muse 

That  with  no  middle  flight  intends  to  soar 
Above  the  Aonian  mount 

seems  fairly  self-conscious.  But  even  Milton  did 
not  intimate  that  man  lost  the  joys  of  Eden  in 
order  to  gain  the  boon  of  immortality  in  the 
poetry  of  Paradise  Lost. 

It  is  not  alone  these  actors  whom  I  have  named 
that  look  forward  to  the  glory  of  soiilt,  but 
Agamemnon  holds  up  before  his  men  tie'  disgi 
which  will  be  theirs  in  comini:  year.-,  if  they  fail 
in  the  purpose  of  the  war;  Calchas  tells  of  por- 
tents the  renown  of  which   shall   never  die,   and 


248  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Hector,  when  he  realizes  that  Athena  has  lured 
him  to  his  doom,  does  not  collapse  but  takes  new 
courage  in  the  determination  to  do  some  worthy 
deed,  a  deed  to  be  known  to  future  generations 
of  men.  A  poet  who  could  paint  the  sufferers 
from  the  war  as  repaid  for  it  all  by  the  immor- 
tality his  song  would  bring  to  them  could  hardly 
have  spurned  a  like  immortality  for  himself. 

This  all-pervading,  self-conscious,  Greek  indi- 
vidualism is  no  more  evident  in  Pindar,  who  likens 
himself  to  the  eagle,  the  divine  bird  of  Zeus;  or 
in  Aeschylus,  who  unabashed  by  defeat  in  a 
dramatic  contest  proudly  said,  ' i  I  leave  my  merits 
to  the  decision  of  time, ' '  than  it  is  in  the  epitaph 
of  the  sculptor:  "I  was  an  artist  in  stone,  in  no 
way  inferior  to  Praxiteles, ' '  or  in  that  of  the 
woodchopper:  "Here  I  lie  a  woodchopper;  a 
better  woodchopper  I  never  saw."  No  man  was 
ever  more  thoroughly  a  Greek  than  the  creator 
of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey;  he  too  must  have 
had  this  Greek  passion  for  individual  glory. 

The  arguments  against  an  historical  Homer 
might  seem  justified  by  the  fact  that  his  name  is 
not  found  in  the  writings  of  any  Greek  author 
until  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century,  or  presum- 
ably three  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  the 
poet.  (The  conjectural  reference  to  Homer  by 
Callinus  is  based  on  an  emendation  and  is  most 
improbable.)  This  interval  of  three  centuries 
seems  a  serious  gap  in  the  Homeric  tradition.  It 
must  be  remembered,  however,  that  we  have  but 


THE   IL IAD  AND  THE  ODYfi 

little  Literature  dating  from  the  period  I 

Bomer  and  Xenophanes,  who  was  the  fi 

the  oameof  Bomer    Also,  this  Literature  lb  highly 

fragmentary.  Largely  pi       rved  by  grammai 

and  rhetoricians,  who  wished  to  illustrat        me 

role  of  Language,  or  by  oompil<  i 

ohoioe  quotations. 

The  first  writers  whose  works  arc  presen 
in  any  large  compass  make  frequent  use  of  the 
name  of  the  poet.    Pindar  and  Bimonides  both 
quote  him  and  use  the  name  Bomer,  and  in  the 
first  prose  works  which  we  have  Bomer 'a  name 
frequently  occurs.     No  one  of  thee      arly  writ- 
refers  to  him  as  some  unknown  or  shadowy  per- 
sonality, but  as  the  writer  whom  everyone  kn< 
and  to  whom  Greece  was  most   indebted   for   its 
theology  and  its  civilization. 

The  first  elegiac  poet  whose  name  we  know  is 
Callinus,  who  probably  Lived  early  in  the  seventh 
century.  The  first  poet  of  tin1  erotic  elegy  whose 
name  we  know  is  ftfimnermus,  who  also  Lived  in 
the  seventh  century.  Oddly  enough,  however,  the 
name  of  neither  of  these  is  found  in  any  Gr 
writer  before  Strabo,  whose  Life  extended  into  the 

first  centurv  of  the  Christian  era.    That  is.  neither 

■ 

Callinus  nor  Mimnerinus  is  named   in  any  (In 
literature  for  about  seven  hundred  years  after  his 
own  age,  a  period  probably  twice  as  Lou         from 
Homer  to  the  first  mention  of  his  nan.        Yet  tin 
critics  who  have  been  m<  b1    skeptical  in  regard 
to  Homer  do  not  throw  the  existence  of  Callinus 


250  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

and  Mimnermus  into  the  realm  of  the  impossible 
or  the  improbable.  How  absolutely  fallacious 
arguments  from  silence  are  likely  to  be  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  the  name  of  Chaucer  is  found 
neither  in  the  poetry  of  Milton  nor  in  that  of 
Shakespeare,  although  the  bulk  of  their  poetry 
is  far  greater  than  all  the  poetry  surviving  from 
Homer  to  Pindar. 

Although  it  is  hard  to  decide  how  much  in  his 
plots  or  in  his  narratives  Homer  owed  to  the 
poets  before  him,  there  are  certain  traits  or 
features  which  must  have  been  his  own.  These 
are  found  in  both  poems,  but  not  elsewhere,  so 
far  as  we  can  judge,  except  in  writings  directly 
influenced  by  Homer. 

The  poet  in  selecting  a  war-theme  for  his  Iliad 
did  not  take  up  the  whole  war,  but  a  small  frag- 
ment of  that  war  just  before  its  close,  hence  all 
the  story  of  the  Iliad  covers  hardly  more  than 
seven  weeks,  and  the  fighting  is  confined  to  but 
four  days.3  Twenty-one  days  are  given  to  the 
opening  book  of  the  poem,  and  a  like  number  to 
the  closing  book,  nearly  all  of  which  pass  by  event- 
less. For  instance,  in  the  first  book  it  is  said  that 
the  plague  lasted  for  nine  days;  and  in  the  last 
book  it  is  said  that  nine  days  were  spent  in  pre- 
paring the  pyre  for  Hector. 

In  the  Odyssey  Homer  took  a  tale  of  wander- 
ings and  adventures  which  might  have   spread 

s  An  excellent  discussion  is  given  by  Professor  Bassett  in  his 
article,  "The  Structural  Similarity  of  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  as 
Revealed  in  the  Treatment  of  the  Hero's  Fate,"  Class.  Jour., 
XIV,  557. 


THE   ID IAD  AND  THE  ODYS  .1 

over  many  years,  bul  lie  confined  his  buI 
the  Btory  of  the  l.-i         a-  da\ s,  ><>  that  tin-  ••ni 
action  of  the  < >d;.  tnbra  I  fort 

seventeen  of  which  go  by  in  a  single  e  which 
says  that  he  sailed  on  for  seventeen  da;        od  in 

another  verse  it    is  -aid  tli;it    he  made  hi-   raft    in 

four  day s,  thna  eliminating  four  days  more,  bei 

the   dayfl    about    which    BOinethin  told 

number  Less  than  twenty,  or  n<»t   far  from  the 

nnmher  o['  eventful  <lavs  in  the  Iliad. 

This  superh  piece  of  poetic  economy  of  confin- 
ing the  action  to  a  few  Importanl  daya  Beema  to 
have  been  found  in  none  of  the  poema  of  the  Epic 
Cycle,  if  we  may  trust  the  authority  of  Aristotle, 

who  contrasts  the  Iliad  and  the  0dyB8ey  in  this 
regard  with  all  the  other  epics.  It  is  not  found  in 
any  of  the  later  Greek  epic  poets,  such  as  Eesiod, 
Apollonms  of  Rhodes,   and   Quintufl   of   Smyrna, 

nor  in  Vergil,  whose  poem  covers  the  events  of 

vears.      Vergil    clearly    followed    the    annalist  ic 

style  of  the  poets  of  the  Cycle  rather  than  the 

method  of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey.     And  [\ 
not  found  in  the  Paradise  Lost  of  Milton. 

The  first  word  of  the  Iliad  is  "wrath,"  pt)j 
the  first  word  of  the  Odyssey  is  "man."        pa, 
each   poem   thua   giving   the   theme   with    the   very 

first  word.    The  Btory  ^  the  Iliad  does  n«»t  depend 

on  the  character  of  Achilles,  hut  on  his 

anger  which  eliminates  even  the  \,       from  lo 

stretches  of  the  poem.      But    in  the  (My--  .    t 
hero  himself   is  always   the  center  of   the   poem, 
quite  as  important  when  absent  as  when  present 


252  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Apparently  Homer  was  the  only  poet  of  the 
early  epic  thus  clearly  to  define  his  theme  at  the 
very  start.  The  first  verse  of  the  Thebais  is 
quoted  as:  "Sing  of  Argos,  goddess,  of  thirsty 
Argos,  whence  the  chieftains  came."  The  Thebais 
seems  to  have  been  only  remotely  concerned  with 
Argos  itself;  the  real  story  was  connected  with 
the  struggle  at  Thebes.  The  Little  Iliad  is  said 
to  have  begun  with  the  verse:  "I  sing  of  Ilium 
and  Dardania  of  fine  steeds.' '  If  we  had  no  other 
means  than  this  verse  of  judging  the  contents  of 
that  poem,  we  could  hardly  arrive  at  any  idea  of 
the  varied  themes  given  in  the  summary  of 
Proclus.  Each  of  the  longer  poems  of  Hesiod 
begins  with  praise  of  the  Muses  and  gives  no  hint 
of  the  subject  of  the  proposed  poems.  Apollonius 
of  Rhodes  introduces  his  Argonautica  with  the 
verse:  "Beginning  with  thee,  0  Phoebus,  I  will 
call  to  mind  the  deeds  of  ancient  men. "  This 
gives  not  the  slightest  inkling  of  the  heroes  or 
their  exploits.  Quintus  of  Smyrna  begins  with 
the  verse  "When  god-like  Hector  was  slain  by  the 
son  of  Peleus,"  leaving  us  quite  in  the  dark  in 
regard  to  his  intended  theme.  All  these  introduc- 
tions, or  most  of  them,  seem  to  be  influenced  by 
Homer,  yet  are  totally  unlike  him.  Horace,  in  his 
Ars  Poetica  137,  contrasts  the  simple  dignified 
words  in  which  Homer  begins  his  poems  with 
the  bombastic  introduction  of  the  cyclic  poem: 
Fortunam  Priami  cantabo  et  nobile  bellum.  It 
must  have  been  more  than  pure  accident  that  the 


THE    EL IAD   AND  THE   ODYfi 

Iliad  and  the  ( >d;.  both  have  this  perfect  Inl 

ductinii,  a  perfection  approached  by  do  oth<  rly 

l t.    Vergil 'a  Armo  virumquecano,  and  Miltoi 

Of  nnm's  first  disobedience  are  simply  imitate 
of  Homer. 

In  cadi  poem  Homer  gives  the  impression  that 

the  plot  is  well  known.     Xeverthele  u  full  art' 

the  details,  so  clear  the  outlines,   that    hi 

in  each  to  be  creating  B   new   ] dot    and   telling  a 

new  storv.    We  learn  as  if  by  accident  the  cause 

of  the  anger,  its  intensity,  and  its  results,  and 
We  fully  understand  it  without    the   help  of  any 
details  not  given  in  the  Iliad  itself.     In  a  like  man- 
ner we  learn  that  Odysseus  has  been  twenty  ye 
from  home,  that  his  wife  is  Penelope,  that  Bhe 
beset  with  suitors,  and  that  their  land  and  home 
have  both  drifted  into  something  resembling  an- 
archy.   It  is  highly  important  in  estimating  the 
small  debt  Homer  owed  to  tradition  that  we  are 
able  to  appreciate  both  poems  without  any  foot- 
notes, and  without  any  knowledge  of  the  tradition 
back  of  Homer,  except  as  the  poet  himself  gr 
us  that  knowledge. 

The   most    inattentive   reader   of    Homer    has 
noticed  how  dramatic  the  story  ifl  and  how  la: 
a  part   is  devoted  to  the  Bpeeohefl  of  the  various 

participants.    We  judge  of  the  character  of  the 

different  actors  in  Homer,  for  the  most  part,  | 
from  what  the  poet  tells  118,  but   from  the  words 
of  these  men  themselves.     A  little  over  one  half 
of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  is  in  din  oh. 


254  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

The  poetry  of  Homer  is  so  dramatic,  that,  with 
very  little  editing,  large  parts  of  it  could  be  put 
upon  the  stage  almost  in  the  very  words  of  the 
original.  The  Odyssey  shows  no  decline  in  the 
matter  of  direct  speech,  indeed  a  trifle  less  than 
one  half  of  the  Iliad,  a  little  more  than  one  half 
of  the  Odyssey,  are  composed  in  the  form  of  direct 
speech. 

No  other  ancient  epic  poet  approached  Homer 
in  this  regard,  even  when  he  had  the  example  of 
Homer  before  him  and  tried  to  imitate  him.* 
Hesiod  has  few  or  no  speaking  characters  and 
they  most  unimportant ;  and  the  scanty  fragments 
from  the  Epic  Cycle  seem  to  warrant  the  assump- 
tion that  these  poems  were  narrative  rather  than 
dramatic.  It  must  have  been  due  to  the  genius 
of  Homer  that  his  characters  reveal  their  natures 
by  their  own  words  and  acts  rather  than  by  any 
description  by  the  poet  himself.  This  assumption 
applies  to  no  single  portion  but  to  all  parts  of  both 
poems.  Even  in  the  last  book  of  the  Odyssey, 
which  the  critics  despise,  these  character-revealing 
speeches  abound. 

Both  poems  describe  things  of  superlative 
excellence,  not  in  themselves,  but  in  the  effect  they 
produce  upon  others.  When  Helen  first  appeared 
Homer  made  no  attempt  to  audit  her  charms.  We 
know  how  beautiful  she  must  have  been  from  the 
words  spoken  by  the  old  men  of  Troy,  men  long 

*  The  figures  are  given  by  Elderkin,  "Aspect  of  the  Speech 
in  the  Later  Greek  Epic,"  Johns  Hopkins  University  dissertation, 
1906. 


THE   XL  IAD  AND  THB  0DYSS1 

beyond  the  years  of  youthful  enthusiasm,  wh< 
they  said :  "Tin-  Greeks  and  the  Trojan 
be  blamed  for  undergoing  Borrows  these  many 
years  for  a  woman  so  beautiful        We  ha 

added    feeling    for    the    majesty'    of    Agamemnon 
when  we  hear  Priam  Bay,  as  he  looks  down  from 

the  walls  of  Troy:  "1  never  saw  so  stately  or 

handsome  a  man,  for  he  surely  looks  like  a  king. '" 
The  words   are  all   the  more  convincing,   sin 
Priam  is  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  he  was  askii 
about  Agamemnon. 

In  the  last  book  of  the  Iliad,  when  Priam  came 
into  the  tent  or  hut  of  Achilles  to  beg  the  body  of 
his  son,  the  poet  brought  Priam,  the  father  of  t: 
man  who  had  slain  Achilles'  nearest  friend,  into 
the  presence  of  the  very  warrior  who  had  robbed 
him  of  Hector  as  well  as  of  other  sons,  and  thi 
described  their  feelings  as  they  gazed,  each  into  the 
face  of  his  foe:  "Then  Priam  the  son  of  Dardanv 
looked  with  surprise  at  Achilles,  because  of  his 
stature  and  his  beauty,  for  his  {'ace  was  as  tl 
face  of  the  gods;  while  Achilles  in  his  turn  d 

astonished  when  he   Baw   the  majestic   presenc 
and  heard  the  noble  language  of  Priam."     Whei 
have  dignity  and  nobility  ever  been  bettor  pictured 
than  in  these  verses?    The  fad  that  Priam  should 
see   nobility   and   beauty    in   his   greatesl    fo< 
praise    indeed,    and    that    Achilles    should    gaze 
wrapped  in  admiration  at  the  majestic  presenc 
of  the  very  man  whose  son  he  had  determined  to 
throw  to  the  dogs  gives  an  imp:  (  exalted 

beauty  beyond  all  description. 


256  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

When  Telemachus  and  Peisistratus,  the  son  of 
Nestor,  came  to  visit  Menelaus  in  his  own  mag- 
nificent palace,  the  palace  is  not  described,  but 
we  catch  some  glimpses  of  its  beauty  from  these 
words:  "And  they  gazed  with  wonder  through- 
out the  palace  of  the  Zeus-nourished  Menelaus, 
for  it  was  as  the  splendor  of  the  sun  or  moon 
throughout  the  high-roofed  halls.' ' 

The  island  of  Calypso  must  have  been  of 
wondrous  beauty,  for  Hermes,  when  he  came 
straight  from  splendid  Olympus  to  warn  that 
goddess  that  she  could  no  longer  detain  Odysseus, 
even  Hermes  "stood  and  looked  with  rapture  at 
the  beauties  of  the  island. ' '  It  was  only  after  he 
had  feasted  his  eyes  on  this  earthly  paradise  that 
he  continued  on  his  mission.  "What  must  have 
been  the  charm  of  an  island  that  could  thus  hold 
a  god  familiar  with  the  beauties  of  Olympus !  It 
adds  impressiveness  to  the  devotion  Odysseus  had 
for  his  own  native  land  when  we  know  that  he 
preferred  all  the  struggles  and  dangers  which  lay 
between  him  and  Ithaca  rather  than  quietly  to  live 
in  that  entrancing  island. 

We  get  some  indication  of  the  extreme  ugliness 
of  the  monstrous  wife  of  the  cannibal  Antiphates 
from  the  simple  verse:  "The  men  when  they  saw 
her  looked  on  her  with  loathing. ' ' 

Such  a  superlative  piece  of  poetic  economy, 
describing  unusual  objects  by  their  effect,  is, 
naturally,  rarely  used;  and  Homer  has  numerous 
detailed  descriptions — such  as  the  descriptions  of 


THE   ILIAD  AND  THH  ODYt 

the  shield  of  Agamemnon,  tin*  ohariot  and  hoi 

of  Poseidon,  the  oglinesfl  of  Thersites,  tie-  palac 
and  gardens  of  Alcinous,  the  cave  of  the  Cyclop 

or  the  hideonsni'SS  of  Seylla. 

Homer  Loved  to  withhold  the  crisis  and  also 

to  prolong  the  suspense   in  cases   of  Lrr« •; i T    exoit 
ment.      When   Achilles  comes   hark   with    his    new 
armor  we  expect  that  he  will  rush  ui>«>n  the  field 
and  immediately  meet  and  slay  Eeetor,  hut  <  )dys- 
seus  interferes  with  the  demand  that  tie-  Boldiei 
first  be  fed,  a  suggestion  which  leads  to  debate 
and  delay.    When  at  last  all  impediments   seem 
removed  and  Achilles  rushes  forward  t<>  aveng 
Patroclus,  a  multitude  of  actions  postpone   the 
climax.     The  hero  must  first  meet  Aeneas,  and 
then  Lycaon;  he  must  be  thwarted  by  the  god  of 
the  river:  and  even  then  it  is  onlv  after  anotlu 
series    of    delays    that    he    comes    face    to    fac 
with  Hector.     Exactly  similar  is  the  plan  of  the 
Odvssev.     When  that  hero  returns  to  his  pals 

■ft  * 

and  sees  with  his  own   eyes   the  violence  of   the 
suitors,  we  expect  that  he  will  at  one*'  assert   1. 
power  and  take  vengeance.     But  there  is  first  the 
fight  with  the  beggar,  the  washing  of  the  feet, 
the  story  of  the  sear,  the  description  of  the  bow 
and  how  he  came  by  it,  then  the  attempts  t.»  stru 
it,  and  the  seemingly  interminable  Beries  of  d< 
lays;  and  then  at  last  the  vengeance. 

Both  poems  agree  so  closely  in  the  multiplicity 
of  events  and  in  the  withholding  of  the  climax, 
that  almost  th.-  same  number  of  events  interval 


258  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

between  the  time  when  Achilles  hears  of  the  death 
of  Patroclus  and  determines  to  avenge  the  death 
of  his  friend,  and  the  slaying  of  Hector,  as  inter- 
vene between  the  return  of  Odysseus  to  his  own 
palace  and  the  slaughter  of  the  suitors.  This 
great  retardation  in  each  poem  covers  about 
twenty-two  hundred  verses.  This  is  no  happy 
accident,  no  chance  coincidence,  and  it  is  no 
imitation.  It  shows  in  the  two  poems  the  creative 
impulse  of  one  and  the  same  mind. 

Homer  loves  also  in  moments  of  great  excite- 
ment to  prolong  the  suspense.  Achilles,  when  he 
sees  that  the  Trojans  are  on  the  point  of  burning 
the  fleet,  smites  his  thighs  in  intense  excitement 
and  urges  Patroclus  to  rush  forth  and  save  the 
ships,  knowing  that  if  they  are  consumed  neither 
he  nor  the  Greeks  can  escape.  Just  at  this 
moment  of  haste  and  anxiety  the  poet  stops  to 
tell  us  how  Patroclus  arms  himself.  With  aggra- 
vating minuteness  he  describes  each  piece  of  the 
armor  and  gives  a  list  of  all  the  officers  in  the 
army,  with  their  ancestry.  He  tells  how  Achilles 
goes  to  his  tent  and  gets  a  cup  his  mother  had 
given  him,  how  he  purifies  it,  and  washes  it  in 
fresh  water,  then  washes  his  own  hands  and  offers 
a  prayer  of  sixteen  verses,  after  which  he  calmly 
returns  to  his  tent  and  carefully  puts  the  cup  back 
in  the  chest.  In  exactly  one  hundred  and  fifty 
verses  after  Achilles  smote  his  thighs  does  the 
poet  permit  Patroclus  to  move  to  the  rescue. 


THE   ILIAD  and  THE  0DY8 

In  the  Odyssey  when  the  hero,  clinging  under 

the  belly  of  the  ram,  is  earned  from  the 
the  Cyclops,  the  monster  1        bold  of  the  r 

and    makes    him    a    Long  oh,    while    W€ 

Odysseus   are   alike    in    snspe  Again,    wh 

Odyssens  comes  to  his  palace  in  the  toii        •'  a 
beggar,  he  makes  his  plan-  for  vengeance  revolve 
around  his  ability  to  keep  himself  unknown  to  the 
members  of  his  household.     But  while  h 
being  washed  by  the  aged    Eurycleia,  who  had 
nursed  him  in  his  infancy,  she  recognizee  the  old 
scar,  and  just  when  we  are  in  intense  anxiety  to 
know  whether  she  will  baffle  his  plans,  now  that 
she  knows  the  beggar  is  none  other  than  the  I 
absent  Odysseus,  the  poet  lets  us  wait  while  he 
tells  of  the  birth  and  babyhood  of  the  hero,  how 
he  came  to  be  named  Odysseus,  how  he  hap] 
to  visit  his  grandfather,  the  details  of  the  hunt 
on  one  of  those  visits,  and  all  about  the  wild  1" 
that  made  the  scar,  the  scar  which  the  nurse  so 
easily  recognized. 

But,  though  the  poet  may  Leave  OS  anxious  in 
regard  to  details,  he  always  fa  -  as  in  torn 
well  in  advance,  of  the  outcome  of  the  plot  and 
its  chief  features.  No  one  needs  to  turn  to  the 
last  page  to  see  how  matters  are  to  *'Ui\.  When 
Agamemnon  prays  that  the  sun  may  no1  until 

he  has  slain  Hector  and  destroyed  Troy,  we  i 

told  that  this  prayer  is  not  to  be  answered    W 

are  warned  that  the  plans  to  bring  the  war 
an  end  by  means  of  a  duel  between   I 


260  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

Menelaus  are  to  be  abortive.  We  are  told  in  ad- 
vance that  Patroclus'  interest  in  the  welfare  of 
the  Greeks  is  to  lead  to  his  own  ruin;  that  the 
ships  will  not  be  destroyed  by  fire;  that  Hector 
will  be  slain ;  and  that  his  body  will  not  be  thrown 
to  the  dogs.  No  hearer  of  the  Iliad  is  ever  in 
doubt  regarding  the  final  outcome  of  every  im- 
portant scene.  In  the  Odyssey  likewise  we  are 
assured  that  the  hero  will  return  in  twenty  years ; 
that  he  will  have  lost  all  his  companions ;  that  he 
will  escape  from  the  Cyclops,  the  Sirens,  Charyb- 
dis,  Scylla,  and  the  wrath  of  Poseidon;  that  he 
will  slay  the  suitors,  find  his  wife  faithful,  and 
will  once  more  reestablish  his  rightful  power  in 
Ithaca. 

By  thus  forecasting  events  the  poet  relieved 
the  anxiety  of  the  hearers  in  regard  to  the  final 
outcome.  Neither  poem,  however,  loses  its  power 
or  sustained  interest  from  the  fact  that  the  fate 
of  the  hero  is  never  in  doubt.  Rather,  as  in  the 
work  of  the  Athenian  dramatists,  the  merit  of 
the  poet  lies  in  the  manner  of  telling  a  story  the 
main  issues  of  which  are  already  known  to  the 
audience.  The  simple  fact  that  the  poet  of  the 
Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  felt  it  necessary  to  point 
out  in  advance  the  course  of  the  story,  and  that 
he  did  not  assume  that  it  was  already  known,  is 
a  strong  indication  that  the  plot  was  not  the  gift 
of  tradition,  but  the  independent  creation  of  the 
poet  himself. 


THE  ILIAD  AND  THE   ODYfi  96] 

The  climax  of  eacli  poem  comes  not  at  tin*  end, 
but  in  the  twenty-second  book.  The  climax  of  the 
Iliad  is  the  death  of  Hector;  thai  of  the  I  >d  iv, 
the  death  of  the  suitors.  The  Iliad  does  n«»t  cloi 
until  a  pyre  has  been  erected  for  Patroehu  and 
funeral  games  held  in  his  honor;  Qol  until  the 
bodv  of  Hector  has  been  ransomed  and  he.  as  well 

w 

as  Patroclus,  has  been  given  the  honor  of  funeral 
dirges  and  a  dignified  burial.  The  Iliad,  which 
has  seen  so  much  bloodshed,  so  much  excitement, 
and  so  much  passion,  ends  with  the  calm  and 
simple  verses:  "And  having  heaped  for  him 
a  mound,  they  returned  homeward,  and  being 
assembled  within  the  palace  of  Priam  they  \  <1 

with  bounteous  repast.  Thus  then  they  buried 
Hector,  the  knight."  In  the  Odyssey  the  palace 
is  cleansed  and  purified  after  the  slaughter  of 
the  suitors,  and  the  guilty  servants  punished. 
Penelope  recognizes  that  the  beggar  is  indeed  her 
husband,  Odysseus,  who  gives  her  a  brief  outline 
of  his  adventures.  The  shades  of  the  suitors  are 
conducted  to  Hades,  where  many  of  the  Greek 
leaders  of  the  Trojan  war  are  seen  again;  Odyi 
seus  then  goes  to  the  farm,  where  he  meets  and 
comforts  his  father;  the  factions  of  [thaoa  are 
reconciled;  and  this  poem,  with  all  its  trials,  Bor- 
rows, and  cruelties  ends  with  these  qniel  verses: 
"Thus  spake  Athena,  and  Odysseus  rejoiced  in 
his  heart,  while  Pallas  Athena  ratified  friendly 
oaths  between  all  factions,  Pallas  Athena,  t! 
daughter  of  Aegis-bearing  Zeus,  as  she  appeared 


262  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

like  unto  Mentor  both  in  form  and  in  voice, ' '  The 
similarity  of  the  closing  of  both  of  these  poems 
is  startling,  yet  there  is  nothing  of  imitation. 
Both  carry  the  marks  of  the  same  creative  power 
working  to  the  same  end  under  different,  although 
kindred  conditions. 

The  action  of  each  poem  is  initiated  by  the 
gods.  Athena  gives  Achilles  the  cue  for  his 
anger,  arouses  Odysseus  to  stop  the  panic  of  the 
Greeks,  provides  the  Iliad  with  a  new  start  by 
encouraging  Pandarus  to  break  the  oath,  and  is 
the  means  through  which  Hector  succumbs  to 
Achilles.  It  is  Athena  also  who  puts  the  action 
of  the  Odyssey  in  motion,  and  finds  a  setting  for 
the  tale  of  the  wanderings  of  Odysseus  by  her 
advice  to  Nausicaa.  She  encourages  and  aids 
Odysseus  in  his  slaughter  of  the  suitors,  just  as 
she  had  cared  for  Achilles  in  the  pursuit  of 
Hector.  The  gods  furnished  the  solution  for  the 
difficult  problem  of  rescuing  the  body  of  Hector 
from  a  revengeful  Achilles  exactly  as  they  solved 
the  problem  of  bringing  peace  to  Ithaca  after  the 
slaughter  of  so  many  of  its  nobility  at  the  hands 
of  the  king.  In  each  poem  the  gods  are  burlesqued 
and  made  the  subject  of  coarse  mirth,  and  in  each 
they  are  used  to  give  the  air  of  probability  to 
things  which  in  themselves  are  most  improbable. 

The  opening  of  each  poem  is  in  a  measure 
repeated  or  reproduced  in  the  close.  In  the  first 
book  of  the  Iliad  the  plague  lasts  for  nine  days, 
the  gods  visit  the  Aethiopians  for  twelve  days, 


THE  ILIAD  AND  THE   ODYfi 

and  Achilles  nourishes  his  anger.    <  hi  the  twent 
first  day  the  gods   return,   and   Thetis   - 
Olympus  that  she  may  Bnpplioate  Zeus  to  honor 
her  son.    These  numbers  are  repeated  in  the  la 

book  of  the  Iliad  so  closely  thai  not  only  does  thi 
book  cover  twentv-one   days,   but    the   <la 
divided  into  nine  and  twelve  precisely  as  th 
in  book  one.     Here,  too,  Achillea  Bpends  a  Like 
number  of  days  in  anger,  here  he  is  again  visited 
by  his  mother,  and  she  again  goes  to  Olympn 
to  consult  with  Zeus.    The  Iliad  opens  in  the  p 
ence  of  the  hosts  of  the  Achaeans,  and  closes  in 
the  presence  of  the  hosts  of  the  Trojans.     There 
is  thus  a  balance  not  only  in  time  and  in  action, 
but  in  the  setting  as  well. 

In  the  Odyssey,  also,  each  scene  in  the  intro- 
duction corresponds  with  a  like  scene  in  the  clo> 
The  poem  is  set  in  motion  by  the  agency  of  Athena, 
it  is  brought  to  an  end  by  the  same  goddee       In 
the  beginning  she  hurries  to  Ithaca  with  the  per- 
mission of  Zeus  in  order  to  arouse  Telemach 
to  action,  and  at  the  close  by  the  command  of  that 
same  god  she  hastens  back  to  Ithaca  bringii 
peace  to  the  island.    Nearly  every  actor  is  named 
or  present  in  the  first  book,  and  nearly  all   1 
appear  to  make  their  final  bow  at  the  doe       The 
suitors  are  dead,  but  they  are  represented  by  their 
kinsmen. 

It  was  the  sense  of  harmony  or  of  balai 
which  led  the  poet  to  open  the  Iliad  with  a  period 
covering  twenty-one  days  and  to  close  it  with  tin' 


264  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

same  number.  A  like  feeling  in  the  Odyssey  made 
him  give  one  day  to  the  opening  and  one  to  the 
closing  of  that  poem.  This  balance  can  hardly  be 
due  to  chance,  but  to  the  poetic  instinct  of  a  single 
mind. 

No  one  feature  of  Homeric  poetry  so  impresses 
the  casual  reader  as  the  large  number  of  repeated 
verses.  No  other  work  of  classical  literature  fur- 
nishes a  parallel.  But,  in  this  regard,  no  part 
of  the  poetry  of  Homer  differs  from  any  other 
part.  Each  poem,  both  as  a  whole  and  in  its  parts, 
consists  of  repeated  verses  aggregating  about  one 
third  of  the  entire  number.  Even  those  books 
which  the  critics  characterize  as  centos,  patch- 
work, made  up  of  verses  mechanically  taken  from 
other  parts  of  the  poems,  are  no  more  marked 
by  repeated  verses  than  are  other  books  which 
are  regarded  as  pure  and  original.  The  book 
most  censured  for  its  repeated  verses  is  the  last 
book  of  the  Odyssey.  This  book,  however,  with 
its  548  verses,  has  only  180  repeated  verses,  or 
just  a  trifle  under  the  average  for  all  of  Homer. 
The  total  number  of  verses  in  Homer  is  27,853. 
Of  these  9253  are  repeated  verses,  that  is,  thirty- 
three  per  cent  of  the  entire  number  are  repeated, 
which  is,  as  already  said,  just  a  shade  higher  than 
the  percentage  in  the  last  book  of  the  Odyssey. 
"Whatever  may  be  our  feeling  in  regard  to  re- 
peated verses,  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  clearly 
reflect  the  same  poetic  attitude  in  this  matter. 


THE  ILIAD  AND  THE  0DY88BY 

Lastly,  and  most  important,  these  two  | 
are  of  almost  the  same  Length.  Bad)  was  divided 
by  scholars  into  twenty-four  books,  the  books 
of  the  Odyssey  averaging  a  trifle  over  five  hun- 
dred verses  each,  while  those  of  the  Iliad  an-  a 
little  under  six  hundred  and  sixty.  N<>  poem  of 
classical  Greece  can  be  compared  as  to  length 
with  either  the  Iliad  or  the  Odyssey.  No  poem 
antedating  comparatively  late  times  has  1,. 
preserved,  except  the  Homeric  poems,  which  con- 
tains as  many  as  two  thousand  verses.  The 
longest  extant  lyric  poem  is  an  epic  theme  treated 
in  lyric  style  by  Pindar  and  it  has  but  two  hun- 
dred and  ninety-nine  verses.  The  longest  Bingle 
drama  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge  is  the 
Oedipus  at  Colonics,  with  seventeen  hundred  and 
eighty  verses. 

We  cannot  do  more  than  make  a  rough  irn 
of  the  size  of  the  different  poems  of  the  epic  cycle. 
The  Thebais  is  said  to  have  contained  about  six 
thousand5  verses,  and  the  Epigoni  was  of  about 
the  same  length,  that  is,  each  was  hardly  one-half 
the  size  of  the  Odyssey.  The  Cypria  had  eleven 
books,  the  Aethiopis  five,  the  Destruction  of  Tf 
two,  the  Little  Iliad  four,  and  the  Nosti  five.  Thus 
the  poem  which  told  of  the  return  of  the  various 
Achaeans  had  less  than  a  fourth  as  many  hooks 
as  the  poem  which  told  of  the  return  of  the  Bingle 
hero,  Odysseus,  while  the  Telegoneia  had  but  two 
books.     We  are  not  permitted   to   he  dogmatic 

sMuller,  History  of  Ancient  Greek  Literature,   71,  00 

verses. 


266 


THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


about  the  size  of  each  of  these  books,  but  we  can 
hardly  be  mistaken  when  we  believe  that  no  one 
of  these  poems  could  have  approached  the  length 
of  either  of  the  Homeric  poems. 

It  seems  clear  also  that  the  mass  or  bulk  of 
these  poems  grew  less  the  later  they  originated. 
The  Telegoneia,  written  about  600  B.C.,  had  but 
two  books,  but  even  two  books  made  a  long  poem 
for  that  time,  since  the  seventh  and  the  sixth 
centuries  were  the  centuries  of  short  songs.  The 
great  names  in  literature  during  that  period  are 
Archilochus,  Alcman,  Ibycus,  Sappho,  Alcaeus, 
Solon,  Tyrtaeus,  and  Stesichorus.  At  the  turn 
into  the  fifth  century  the  great  names  are  Pindar, 
Anacreon,  Simonides,  and  Bacchylides.  No  one 
of  these  seems  to  have  produced  songs  or  poems 
of  more  than  modest  compass. 

If  any  one  will  run  over  the  list  of  famous 
poets  who  came  just  before,  during,  and  immedi- 
ately after  the  time  of  Peisistratus,  he  must 
notice  that  this  was  the  era  of  short  songs.  This 
was  also  the  age  of  the  Seven  Wise  Men  who 
gained  fame  by  the  brevity  of  their  speech.  Yet 
this  era  of  the  short  song  and  the  pithy  speech  is 
the  very  time  in  which  Wolf  and  his  followers, 
down  to  the  last  article  just  written  by  Bethe, 
assume  that  a  commission  gathered  scattered 
songs  into  one  or  two  gigantic  poems. 

It  is  not  merely  an  accident  that  Sappho  and 
Alcaeus  wrote  lyric  poetry  at  the  same  time,  and 
that  Pindar,   Simonides,  Anacreon,  Ibycus,   and 


THE  ILIAD  AND  THE   ODYSSEY 

Bacchylides  were  almost  contemporaries.    Hoi 

it   an   accident   that   Aeschylus,    Sophocles,    and 
Euripides  in  the  next  century  were  all  dramatis! 
All  of  these  were  the  children  of  their  own 
and  nothing  could  be  more  improbable  than  th 
an  age  which  inspired  and  produced  short  soul 
should  have  created  by  commission  or  otherwi 
two   poems   of   such   bulk   as   the    Iliad    and    the 
Odyssey.     The  tendency  was  all  the  other  way. 
Stesichorus  even  broke  up  the  masses  of  the  epic 
into  lyric  songs,  and  Terpander  a  little  earlier  set 
small  portions  of  Homer  to  the  music  of  the  lyre. 
We  may  be  sure  that  it  was  not  a  lyric  age  nor 
a  dramatic  age  but  an  age  wholly  given  over  to 
the  epic  that  called  forth  these  two  lengthy  poems. 
Matthew  Arnold  named  Homer  the  poet  of  the 
grand  style,  but  he  is  also  the  poet  of  the  grand 
outlines,  the  massive  scale.     Everything  is  pre- 
sented on  such  a  huge  canvas.    Xot  a  Trojan  ae*  - 
until  verse  1419  of  the  Iliad,  and  even  though  it  is 
a  war  poem  no  less  than  2400  verses  precede  tin' 
first  shedding  of  blood.    The  Odyssey  is  the  story 
of  Odysseus,  but  that  hero  does  not  appear  until 
well  along  in  the  fifth  book.     Everything  is  so 
deliberate  and  sketched  in  such  large  outliie        It 
is  this  massive  scale  on  which  both  poems  are  con- 
structed that  makes  impossible  the  theory  that 
they  could  have  been  built  out  of  smaller  Bongs. 
One  might  make  a  huge  pile  of  sand  by  putting 
together  many  little  piles  of  sand,  but  one  eann 
give  the  appearance  of  an  oak  to  any  mass  i 


268  THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 

twigs,  however  numerous.  The  size  of  an  organ- 
ism is  as  evident  in  the  parts  as  in  the  whole,  and 
the  vast  scale  on  which  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey 
are  constructed  is  as  manifest  in  the  single  books 
as  in  the  entire  poem.  An  annalistic  poem  might 
have  one  hundred  thousand  verses,  yet  be  con- 
structed on  a  small  scale,  the  bulk  simply  depend- 
ing on  the  many  small  events,  as  a  dictionary 
expands  by  the  simple  addition  of  new  names. 
This  great  bulk  of  the  Homeric  poems  is  not 
due  to  diffusiveness  or  idle  words,  and  Matthew 
Arnold  picks  out  as  one  of  the  essential  marks  of 
Homeric  poetry  its  rapidity  and  directness. 

This  massive  structure  is  unlike  anything  else 
produced  by  the  Greeks  and  is  absolutely  foreign 
to  the  poetic  impulses  of  the  sixth  century,  that 
is,  to  the  age  of  Peisistratus. 

This  massiveness  is  not  in  the  length  of  the 
poems  so  much  as  in  the  broad  framework  on 
which  the  parts  are  built.  Vergil  wrote  a  poem 
which  sang  both  of  a  man  and  of  arms,  that  is, 
he  took  both  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  for  his 
theme  and  he  had  Homer  before  him,  yet  the 
Aeneid  is  six  thousand  verses  shorter  than  the 
single  poem,  the  Iliad.  Nothing  in  Homer  so  fills 
me  with  wonder  as  this  huge  reach  and  grasp. 
It  is  not  so  much  the  size  of  the  poems  as  the 
massiveness  of  the  details  which  reveals  the 
power  and  the  greatness  of  the  poet,  and  in  this 
the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  stand  alone,  but  exactly 
alike.    It  is  possible  to  believe  that  Greece  had  one 


THE  ILIAD  AND  THE  0DY881 

man  who  could  project  such  mighty,  rabh  en< 
mous,  works  of  art,  but  it  is  unthinkable  thai 
had  at  any  period  two  men  or  a  group  of  men 

with  any  such  capacity. 

Everything  fits  into  the  theory  of  a  sin 
Homer:  the  civilization,  the  language,  the  lt«mU, 
the  outlines,  the  marks  of  genius;  and  all  these 
are  supported  by  the  unanimous  verdict  of  the 
best  poets  and  the  greatest  critics  of  twenty-five 
hundred  years. 

The  evidence  for  the  unitv  of  the  Iliad  and 
the  Odyssey  is  so  strong  that  we  should  be  com- 
pelled to  postulate  a  single  Homer  even  if  ancient 
Greece  had  believed  in  many.  But  antiquity  was 
united  in  the  belief  of  one  divine  Homer,  and 
only  one. 


INDEX 


Abstract  nouns,  use  of,  in 
Iliad  and  Odyssey,  85- 
88. 

Achilleis,  the  Ur-Ilias  theory 
regarding,  83-105. 

Actors,  The,  in  Homer,  intro- 
duction of,  166-171,  223; 
individualization  of,  172; 
traditions  concerning,  196, 
224,  225,  229,  234,  235, 
237-239;  names  of,  225- 
226;  epithets  applied  to, 
231-232. 

Aelian,  14,  25,  38. 

Aeneid,  1.     See  also  Vergil. 

Aeolic  forms,  in  Iliad  and 
Odyssey,  4,  96. 

Aeschines,    29. 

Aeschylus,  27,  197,  198,  199, 
242,  248,  267. 

Aethiopis,  11,  265. 

Ajax  and  the  Athenians,  bear- 
ing of  relations  of,  on 
the  Homeric  Question,  47- 
51. 

Alcaeus,  266. 

Alcman,  244,  266. 

Alexandria,  7,  155. 

Allen,  32,  33,   36,   72. 

Amphictyonic  Council,  62. 

Anacreon,  266. 

Anonymity  of  authorship  of 
Iliad  and  Odyssey,  246. 

Antigonus  of  Carystus, 

Paradoxes,  evidence  for 
Homeric  authorship  of 
Thebais,  21. 

Antimachus,  16,  59. 

Antiphon,  24. 

Apollonius  of  Ehodes,  180, 
252. 

Archaeology,  testimony  of, 
135.  See  also  Mycenae; 
Troy;  etc. 

Archilochus,  266. 


Argot,  and   t! 

ptioD  to  Hoi 

1!'. 

Arist.-in-hus.  84,  I".  11,50,  151. 

stopliain's.   1",.  28. 
Aristotle,  l  J   l"  7.  18, 

56,  64,  77,  851. 
Armor,  ]  17    1  18. 
Arnold,  Matthew,  74,  801 

868. 
Astronomy,  testimony  of,  1 07— 

109.  " 
Athenaens,  14,  88,  71. 
Athens    (Attica  »n- 

ysia   in.   4."  ;    inflnenee  on 

Homeric     poetry. 

55-72;    direct    refi 

to,     in    Odyssey, 

geography  of,  not  familiar 

to   Homer,   ."i3.     See  also 

Peisistratus. 
Authorship,    Greek    pride    in, 

243. 
Bacchylides,  266,  267. 
Bards     (rhapsod»- 

Homeric,   7,  61,   64,   81 

regulations     eoneemii 

65-66;    Homer's    DJ 

in  Iliad  and  Od  .  1-8- 

134;  manner  of  Soma 

recitation,  156   I  »>0. 
Bassett,  101,  118,  850. 
Bekker,  cited.  9m'. 
Bentley.  cited,  6  71. 

Bergk,  cited  on  contradictions 

in  Homer,  145—147. 
Bethe.  cited.    79,    SO,  81.    121, 

123,  147.  820. 
Boiling,  cited.  B6,  87. 
Bunyan.  173. 
Byron,  173. 
Callimachi 
Galium*,  15,  16, 
Case-end  in  urs.  oi  in   Iliad 

and  Odyssey,  0 
Catalogue  of  the  Shift  tS. 

Cauer,  cited.  86. 


[271] 


272 


THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


Cervantes,  143,  172. 

Character  delineation  in  Ho- 
mer, 173,  179,  180,  181, 
201-204,  253,  254;  Helen, 
182-189;  Odysseus,  189- 
195;  unity  of,  195,  201- 
203;  Hector,  205-240; 
Paris,  227-230. 

Chaucer,  250. 

Chios,  island  of,  3,  7,  8,  63. 

Chorizontic  movement  (chori- 
zontes),  41,  95. 

Christ,  Ur-Ilias  theory,  82. 

Christ-Schmid,  123. 

Cicero,  78,  102. 

Cleisthenes  of  Sicyon,  61. 

Climate,  arguments  from,  106- 
107,  109-110. 

Contradictions  and  inconsis- 
tencies in  Homer,  137- 
171;  three  groups,  140, 
145,  151,  162. 

Crete,  63,  117. 

Croiset,  cited,  86,  88. 

Cynaethus,  7. 

Cypria,  The,  11,  25,  230,  236, 
265.    See  also  Epic  Cycle. 

Cyprus,  63. 

Dante,  1,  173. 

Dative  plural,  forms  of,  used 
in  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  92- 
93. 

David,  king  of  Israel,  4,  200. 

De  Quincey,  74. 

Definite  article,  use  of,  in 
Iliad  and  Odyssey,  88-92. 

Demodocus,  the  bard,  Homer's 
use  of,  132. 

Demosthenes,  2. 

Destruction  of  Troy,  11,  265. 
See  also  Epic  Cycle. 

"Devices  of  temporary  ex- 
pediency," 151. 

Digamma,  used  by  Homer,  69- 
72. 

Dio  Cassius,  cited,  16. 

Diogenes  Laertius,  47. 

Dorpfeld,  152. 

Drama,  festival  of,  in  ancient 
Greece,  45 ;  period  of,  in 
Greek  history,  242. 

Drerup,  123,  152,  156. 

Diimmler,  cited,  220. 

Early  Ionic  language,  4,  85- 
98. 


Electra,  199. 

Elderkin,  254  note. 

Epic  Cycle,  243,  251,  254; 
arguments  for  Homer 's 
authorship  of,  13-31;  ar- 
guments against,  31-38, 
59.  See  also  Cypria; 
Thebais;  etc. 

Epigoni,  265. 

Euripides,  2,  48,  55,  197,  198, 
199,  200,  267. 

Eustathius,  71. 

Fick,  cited,  76,  79,  149. 

Finsler,  cited,  15,  18,  109,  133. 

Fish,  Homer's  aversion  to, 
6-7. 

Flickinger,  cited,  46  note,  63 
note,  242  note. 

Fox,  Professor,  cited,  107-108. 

Friedlander,  cited  on  the 
simile  of  the  wasps,  150- 
151. 

Fritze,  von,  cited,  122. 

Geography,  52-53,  113. 

Gladstone,  174. 

Glaucon,  Homeric  reciter,  64. 

Gods  and  heroes  in  Homer, 
individualization  of,  172; 
ignoble  conception  of 
gods,  176;  use  of,  262- 
263. 

Goethe,  73-74,  78,  152,  201. 

Gorgias,  24. 

Greek  tradition,  inconsistency 
of,  197. 

Greeks,  conservatism  of,  61- 
62. 

Grote,  cited,  18. 

Grundy,  Mr.,  cited,  110. 

Harper 's  Classical  Dictionary, 
cited,  78. 

Hecataeus,  244. 

Hector,  205-240. 

Helen,  Homer's  portrayal  of, 
182-189. 

Hellanicus,  41. 

Herodotus,  205,  244;  evidence 
from  as  to  date  of  Homer, 
8,  11;  as  to  Homer's  au- 
thorship of  the  Thebais, 
17-18,  21,  of  the  Cypria, 
23,  24,  25;  as  to  author- 
ship of  the  Iliad  and 
Odyssey,  57,  68;  on  char- 
acter of  Paris,  229. 


, 


ENDEX 


. 


Hesiod,  10,  21,  29,  92,  203, 
220-222,  243,  252;  Con- 
test between  Homer  and 
Hesiod,  19,  22. 

Hiatus,  in  the  Iliad  and  Odys- 
sey, 94-95. 

Hiero,  tyrant  of  Syracuse,  61. 

Higher  criticism  (higher  cri- 
tics), 95,  98,101-105,  139, 
151,  211. 

Homer,  estimate  of,  by  an- 
cient "world,  2;  traditions 
regarding,  3;  nativity  of, 
3-8;  also  called  Melesi- 
genes,  7;  sources  of  manu- 
scripts of,  63 ;  text  of,  un- 
altered, 68—69 ;  references 
to,  in  early  Greek  litera- 
ture, 249;  his  pride  in 
authorship,  247. 
date  of,  3-4;  evidence  of 
Herodotus,  8 ;  internal 
evidence  of  his  poetry,  9 ; 
inferences  from  archeo- 
logical  discoveries,  10; 
references  of  other  writ- 
ers, 10-11. 

Homeric  Hymns,  92,  97. 

Homeric  Question,  The,  41,  42, 
43;  arguments  of  Wolf, 
43-72,  of  his  followers, 
76. 

Homeridae,  8. 

Horace,  2,  33,  78,  252. 

Howes,  cited,  2  note. 

Huxley,  cited,  79. 

Hymn  to  Apollo,  37. 

Ibycus,  266. 

Iliad,  1,  10;  first  written  ref- 
erence to,  10-11;  mention 
of  Argos  and  Argives  in, 
18-20;  meter  and  lan- 
guage, theory  of,  240- 
242;  anonymity,  246. 
Resemblances  between,  and 
the  Odyssey,  250-268; 
choice  of  theme,  250 ; 
early  indication  of  theme, 
251-252;  plot,  253;  dra- 
matic quality,  253-254 ; 
effects  produced,  254-257; 
treatment  of  crisis,  257- 
258 ;  prolonging  of  sus- 
pense, 258-259;  forecast- 
ing   of    events,    259-260; 


climax  U9e    0f 

balance, 

length, 

II: 

rapidity    and    direetat— 
of  ityle, 

Ilium.      8e€   Troy. 

Introduction   of   actors,   16G- 

171. 
Interpolations   in 

mssion  of  argumenta  on. 
46-72;   Interna]  e> 

47-;""  rnal  '•  - \  i ■  i •  - 1 . 

1 
planation     of     contra 
tions,  139-140. 

Ion,  Homeric  reciter, 

Isoerat'-.  82,  38,  ' 

Jastrow.  Morris,  eited,  2  It. 

Jebb,   Ur-Ilias  theory,  82,  94, 
95. 

Keller,  cited,  74  note. 

Kenyon,  cited,  2  note  1,  33. 

Kinkel,  cited,  17,  32. 

Kinkel   and    Allen,   cited, 
33. 

Kirchhoff,  152;  cited,  131. 

Koch,  cited,  89. 

Lachmann,  152;  cited.  79.166. 

Lang,  Andrew,  12,  74,  83. 

Language,     arguments     from, 
71,    88,    119-134;    depen- 
dence   of    epic    poet    on, 
154;   sources  of,  24c 
See  also  Vocabulary. 

Leaf,  Walter,   Urllias  theory, 
82;    cited,  on  topographv 
of    Troy,     112   114.     11! 
on  the  Trojan  Catalog D 
113-114,     on     in.    ; 
Athena,  121 ;  simile  of  the 
wasps.     151  ;     on     Trojan 
Avar.  1  68,  231. 

Little  Iliad,  11.  858,  M5.     8 

also  Epic  Cyele. 

Longinus,  40,  41. 

Lucian,  40,  41. 

Ludwich,   152;   eited,  M   I  I  te; 


72. 


Lycon,  63. 
Lyenrgae,  7. 

Maeaulav.    37,    sl  :  on 

Vergil.    180   note   2. 


274 


THE  UNITY  OF  HOMER 


Mahaffy,  cited,  141,  144,  147, 

218. 
Margites,  The,  37. 
Marseilles,  7,  63. 
Megara     (Megarian    sources), 

47,  49,  50,  55,  58. 
Melas  Eiver,  7. 
Melesigenes,    7.      See   also 

Homer. 
Menracl,  cited,  103. 
Meter,  in  Iliad  and  Odyssey, 

93,  240-242. 
Metrodorus  of  Lampsacus,  64. 
Meyer,  Wilhelm,  cited,  98. 
Milton,  1,  134,  180,  238,  241, 

247,  253.  ' 
Mimnermus,  249. 
Misquotations,   13-15,   30,   37. 
Monro,  cited,  89,  93. 
Moore,  37. 

Muelder,  cited,  76,  79,  81. 
Murray,  Gilbert,  cited,  11,  12, 

64,  103,  246. 
Musaeus,   57,   58. 
Mycenae,  topography  and  civi- 
lization, 115,  124  ff. 
Mythology,   Homeric,    177. 
Nativity  of  Homer,  3-8. 
Negative,  The,  adjectival  use 

of,  in  Iliad  and  Odyssey, 

95. 
Nostoi,  11,  265.   See  also  Epic 

Cycle. 
Odyssean   words    used   in    the 

Iliad,  83-85. 
Odysseus,    Homer 's    portrayal 

of,  189-195. 
Odyssey,   1,    10;    first  written 

reference  to,  11 ;  mention 

of  Argos    (Argives),   18- 

20 ;  resemblances  between, 

and    Iliad,    250-269    (see 

also  Iliad). 
Oedipus  at  Colonus,  265. 
Oldfather,  124. 
Onomacritus,  56,  57,  58. 
Original-Iliad   theory.      See 

Ur-Ilia-s. 
Orsi,    Signor,    excavations    of, 

123-124. 
Panathenaic  Festival,   66. 
Panyasis  of  Samos,  or  of  Hali- 

carnassus,  59. 
Papyrus  fragments,  2,  33. 
Paradise    Lost,    1.      See    also 

Milton. 


Paris,  place  of,  in  tradition 
and  in  Homer,  226-227, 
234,  237;  character,  227- 
230,  232. 

Patronymics,  use  of,  in  Iliad 
and  Odyssey,  97-100. 

Pausanias,  15,  16,  17,  21. 

Peisander  of  Rhodes,  59. 

Peisistratus,  44,  46 ;  discus- 
sion of  influence  of,  on 
Homeric  poetry,  55-66, 
68;  commission  theory  of 
Homeric  composition,  44, 
46,  53,  62-66,  166,  266, 
267. 

Perfect,  formation  of,  in 
Homer,  93-94. 

Pericles,  62. 

Pheidias,  244. 

Phemius,  the  bard,  Homer's 
use  of,  132. 

Pherecydes,  242. 

Philoctetes,  197. 

Phillips,  Stephen,  Ulysses,  213. 

Pindar,  25,  28,  220-223,  248, 
249,  266. 

Plato,  2,  14,  21,  37,  38,  64,  68, 
77,  78. 

Plutarch,  14,  68. 

Pope,  cited,  172,  178,  179. 

Proclus,  33. 

Protagoras,  23. 

Pylaemenes,  contradiction  con- 
cerning, 141,  142,  143. 

Quintilian,  2,  78. 

Quintus  of  Smyrna,  180,  252. 

Ramsay,  Sir  William,  cited,  6. 

Rawlinson,  cited  on  Argos  and 
Argives,  18-19. 

Religion.     See  Theology. 

Repeated  verses,  264. 

Retardation,  257-259. 

Rhapsodes   (Reciters).     See 
Bards,  Homeric. 

Robert,  cited,  79,  80,  114,  118. 

Roemer,  cited,  104. 

Rothe,  Carl,  cited,  106,  152, 
153,  201. 

Rutherford,    cited,    27. 

Sappho,  266. 

Schedius,  supposed  contradic- 
tion concerning,  142. 

Schiller,  74,  78,  152. 

Schliemann,  Heinrich,  111- 
112,  115,  116,  152. 

Seeck,  cited,  52. 


INDEX 


Seneca,  40,  41,  78. 

Seven  Wise  Men,  266. 

Seymour,  cited,   78,   ll!>. 

Shakespeare,  134,  166,  172, 
202. 

Shelley,  74,  203. 

Shewan,  cited,  92,  93,  101. 

Shorey,  Paul,  cited,  79  note, 
101. 

Sicels,  The,  123-124. 

Sicily,  7,  123. 

Sicyon,  61. 

Sidon,  and  the  Sidonians,  12. 

Similes,  in  Homer,  124-127. 

Simonides,  29,  249,  266. 

Sinope,  7,  63. 

Smyrna,  birthplace  of  Homer, 
3-8. 

Smyth,   cited,   69   note. 

Snider,  J.  Denton,  cited,  174. 

Socrates,  24,  64,  212. 

Solon,  266. 

Sophists,  The,  23,  24. 

Sophocles,  2,  197,  198,  199, 
242,  267. 

Spiess,  Heinrich,  acknowledg- 
ment, 204  note. 

Sta-sinus,  23. 

Stawell,  Miss  F.  Melian,  cited, 
90,  95,  101. 

Stesichorus1,  29,  266,  267. 

Stesimbrotus  of  Thasos,  64. 

Strabo,  16,  68,  122,  249. 

Sturmer,  152. 

Stummer,  cited,  90,  91. 

Suidas,  37,  38. 

Telegoneia,  265,  266. 

Terpander,  10,  267. 

Thackeray,  143. 

Theoais,  11,  252,  265;  argu- 
ments to  prove  Homer 's 
authorship  of,  15-22.  See 
also  Epic  Cycle. 

Theban  Cvcle.   See  Epic  Cycle. 

Thebes,  19,  20,  220. 

Theognis,  244. 

Theology  of  Homer,  134,  177, 
178-179. 

Thomson,  theory  of  expurga- 
tion, 103. 

Thucvdides,  37,  65,  205,  242, 
244,  245. 

Timaeus  of   Sicily,   68. 

Tiryns,  135. 


Tradition,     Lnfltu  i 

Homei  .     U2l 

829  2  :9. 

Trcv.lv.-m.  i    • 

U    8. 
Trojan  <\.  || 

Troy,    topography    and 
tion  of,  1 1 1   11 
_';  culture,  ]  L6. 

Tvrtacus  of  Lacedaemoi 
16. 

/     lUat,  The,  82   105. 

Van  \y  rawen,  sited,  -         L 

Vergil,  1.  5,  78,  L80,  - 

Y'  mill,  cited,  1 1. 

Vocabulary,  argumei  tn, 

as  to  connection  of  Iliad 
and  Odyssey,  B3  105;  .#il>- 

strat-t 

oite  article,  88-92;   case- 
endings,     92-93 ;      in 
93 ;   formation  of  the 
feet,  93-94  ;   A^olic  forms, 
96-97;    patronymics,   97- 
100;     hiatus,    94-9 
jectival   use   of   n< 
95.     See  also  Digamma. 

Voss,  cited,  74,  75. 

Wace,  cited,  135   136. 

Warrior    Vase,    118. 

Wasps,  simile  of  the,  150-15X 

Welcker,  133. 

Wieland,  74. 

Wilamowitz,   152, 

11,  12,  15,  18,  22, 

76,    79,    80,    81,    82,    109, 

114.  148,  219. 

Witte,  cit. 

Wolf,  F.  A.,  Fr  1 1  ; 

arguments  of,  43  7l!.  78, 
ij  challenged  by  Voss, 
75. 

Wood,  152;  sited,  4.  144  l 

174. 

" Wrath,"  The,  164,  189,      » 
Wright,  sited,  79. 
Xenodotus.  50. 
Xenon,  25,  40,  41. 
Xenophanes    from    C  lopl 

references  to  Homer.  10— 

11.  60,  249. 
Xenophon.  81,  87,  88, 
Zephyrus,  in   Eomer,  4-5. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

-  -    -       •    •      «  -  -  —  *i»x>  too  Arttt*  stnmned  below. 

RETURN       CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

ro ■■►       202  Main  Library  642-3403 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1 -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

[>-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE   AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


iJI&S^"    OCT  2     75 


■ 


RECEIVED  *J 


NOV    91985 


gECCm.     OCT  12 


1985 


_____ 


ABBOW  JAH10  19H6 


v.„. 

4 

■« 

FORM  NO.  DD  6,  40m,  6'76 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 


GENERAL  LIBRARY    U  C   BERKELEY 


mi 


B0OQ72SM70 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


I 


•       ' 


i 


